Eugenics in race and state.

  • International Congress of Eugenics 1921 : American Museum of Natural History)
Date:
1923
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Eugenics in race and state. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    272/534 (page 256)
    256 OTTO E. KOEGEL down in Regina v. Millis that informal marriages were never valid in England although they were convinced that the decision in Regina v. Millis was incorrect. This was because of the principle that the House of Lords is irrevocably bound by its own decisions, a principle which has never maintained in the United States. As the English common law stands today in England, informal marriages were never valid.^^ As the common law in one-half of the American states stands today, informal marriages are valid and there are no such dis¬ advantages as the widow not taking dower and the children not inheriting. Informal marriages were not favored in the American colonies. By the laws of some of the colonies they were expressly declared void. Time will not permit a lengthy discussion of the question, but it has been shown else¬ where that common law marriages were contrary to the policy if not the laws of all the colonies.^® We have seen that common law marriages were abolished in continental countries in 1563, in England a quarter of a century before the American Revolution, and were either illegal or contrary to the policy of all the American colonies. The question then arises, why are they valid today in one of half the American states? Are we to find some early but well considered decisions of the courts of this country establishing the doctrine? Let us see. The earliest case reported in this country where the question is decided is the case of Mangue v. Mangue decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in 1804.^^ Plaintiff asked for a divorce on the ground of adultery and offered in proof of marriage a certificate of a justice of the peace that the parties went through an informal marriage ceremony in his presence, each taking the other by the hand and reciting that they were henceforth husband and wife. The court held there was no marriage and refused the divorce on the ground that there was no marriage to dissolve. The next case reported is Fen ton v. Reed, decided by Chancellor Kent of New York in 1809.^® Although not at all necessary to the decision in this case Chancellor Kent said that a contract of marriage per verba de prae¬ senti amounts to an actual marriage and is as valid as if made in J ade ecclesiaey His opinion is but one-half page in length. There is no men¬ tion of the earlier Massachusetts case or of the colonial laws. In fact the decision does not even show Chancellor Kent wrote it but we know he did. Law Times (London), Oct. 24, 1896. Koegel, Common Law Marriage, Chapter V. 1 Mass. 240. 16 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 52.