Majority
Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. The evidence as to the existence of the alleged common-law marriage between plaintiff and Kent does not approximate that required in order to constitute a common-law marriage (Graham v. Graham, 211 App. Div. 580 , 582), for the reason that it fails to disclose any present consent of the plaintiff and Kent to take each other as husband and wife, to enter into a relation to continue until death, with the resulting obligations of husband and wife. Furthermore, the evidence discloses that the period during which the alleged common-law marriage is said to have existed was one in which it was legally impossible to contract such a marriage. (Matter of Hinman, 147 App. Div. 452 .) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.