In Clark v. Clark (1920) 44 Nev. 44 194 P. 96, the husband entered into a ceremonial marriage with his second wife a year before his divorce to his first wife was final. The husband later deserted his second wife and entered into a ceremonial marriage with his third wife, who subsequently died. The court addressed the question of whether the second wife was the husband's lawful wife despite the fact that the husband's divorce was not final before their marriage. In Clark, because the husband continued to live with his second wife as husband and wife, the court held that he was estopped from denying that he was her husband. (Clark v. Clark, supra, 194 P. at p. 100.) "The defendant admits a course of conduct, a manner of living with the plaintiff after the removal of the impediment, which shows clearly that he must have regarded himself as the husband of the plaintiff, to all intents and purposes. She had a perfect right to assume, as did his mother, that he was accepting her as his wife in truth and in fact. He admits that plaintiff was kind and good toward him. Even had he not entered into the second marriage contract with her, it was his evident intention, until he became enamored of his third wife, that she should regard him as her husband." (Ibid.) The court held, therefore, that the husband was estopped from asserting a position inconsistent with his conduct during his marriage. (Ibid.)