In Bancroft v. Bancroft (1935) 9 Cal. App. 2d 464, husband's first wife attacked the validity of his second marriage. Husband could produce no record that he had divorced the first wife but contended that once he proved a second ceremonial marriage it was wife's burden to rebut the presumption that his second marriage was valid and not bigamous. ( Id. at p. 469) The Court of Appeal held that when both parties to the prior marriage were before the court, the party asserting the first marriage had been dissolved carried the burden of proof. The court distinguished those cases in which the validity of the second marriage was presumed: "In each of the cited cases one of the parties to the first marriage was not in court. Such party was either dead or absent and the presumption that such deceased or absent party had obtained a divorce prior to the second marriage was allowed to prevail in favor of the second ceremonial marriage in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary. In the instant case both parties to the second marriage were in court and testified. Defendant told vaguely of circumstances, which led him to believe he had obtained a divorce. This was a matter strictly within his own knowledge. Had he obtained a divorce prior to his second marriage he either knew, or should have known, when and where the decree was granted. Under these circumstances and on these preliminary proceedings, with the defendant on the stand and testifying, and he having failed to produce satisfactory evidence of his divorce from plaintiff, we believe the trial court was justified in invoking the following presumptions against him and against the one we are considering: 'That if weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered, when it appears that stronger and more satisfactory was within the power of the party, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.' " ( Bancroft, supra, 9 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 469-470.)