1. Appellant's ceremonial marriage to decedent was void and there was never any agreement between them subsequent thereto which could be construed to have accomplished a common law marriage. The relations between appellant and decedent were meretricious from the date of the ceremonial marriage until the date of her death. Appellant is not entitled to share in decedent's estate since he was not her husband at the time of her death.
2. Voorhees v. Voorhees, 46 N.J. Eq. 411; affirmed, 47 N.J. Eq. 315, was not overruled by Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 68 N.J. Eq. 414.
3. Appellant's claim to a share of the estate was dishonest from the beginning, and to reward one who advances a spurious claim by payment for the services of his counsel in support of such claim would be a fraud on the estate. It will not be permitted.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Vice-Ordinary Berry in the prerogative court.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, WALKER, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.