Horton v. Horton
Decision Date | 05 July 1921 |
Docket Number | Civil 1893 |
Citation | 22 Ariz. 490,198 P. 1105 |
Parties | ANNIE HORTON, Appellant, v. L. J. HORTON, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. F. H. Lyman, Judge. Judgment reversed with directions to dismiss action.
Messrs Phillips, Cox & Phillips and Mr. C. F. Ainsworth, for Appellant.
Mr Earl Anderson, of Phoenix, for Appellee.
This action was brought by the plaintiff (the parties will be designated in this court as they were in the court below) to obtain a judgment annulling the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, celebrated in Deming, New Mexico, on the twelfth day of September, 1918, on the ground that such marriage was void. It appears from the findings of the lower court that the parties both resided in the state of Arizona at the time they contracted the marriage in New Mexico, and that they have ever since retained such residence. It further appears that the defendant was formerly married to one William Crawford, but that on the first day of August, 1918, she was granted an absolute divorce from her husband by the superior court of Maricopa county, Arizona. For the purpose of avoiding the restrictions of the laws of Arizona, prohibiting the marriage of a divorced person until after the expiration of one year from the time the divorce is granted, the parties went to Deming, New Mexico, and were there married. They immediately returned to this state and lived together as husband and wife until about the twenty-sixth day of February, 1920, when the defendant drove plaintiff from the house, since which time the parties have lived separate and apart.
The lower court determined that the marriage in Deming, New Mexico, was void, and entered a judgment annulling it for the reason and on the ground that such marriage was consummated prior to the expiration of one year from the date of the divorce granted to the defendant.
The provisions of the statutes of this state on the subject are contained in section 3839, Revised Statutes of 1913, and section 3864, chapter 54, Session Laws of 1917 page 75:
It is conceded that by the laws of New Mexico the marriage between the parties when consummated there was lawful in that state. Does the fact that the parties, being domiciled in this state, left here and went to New Mexico for the purpose of evading the restrictions provided in section 3864 and were there married, render such marriage invalid in this state? We do not think so. It will be observed that the statutes above cited do not in terms, or by necessary implication, declare such a marriage void. The statutes merely in general terms prohibit such a marriage. No penalty is affixed for disobedience.
In Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 18 Am. Rep. 509, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice GRAY, says:
And this seems to be the overwhelming weight of the better reasoned cases on the subject. Medway v. Needham, 16 Mass. 157, 8 Am. Dec. 131; Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 86 N.Y. 18, 37, 40 Am. Rep. 505; Thorp v. Thorp, 90 N.Y. 602, 43 Am. Rep. 189; Griswold v. Griswold, 23 Colo.App. 365, 129 P. 560; Phillips v. Madrid, 83 Me. 205, 23 Am. St. Rep. 770, 12 L.R.A. 862, 22 A. 114; State v. Shattuck, 69 Vt. 403, 60 Am. St. Rep. 936, and notes, 40 L.R.A. 428, 38 A. 81; State v. Hand, 87 Neb. 189, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 753, 126 N.W. 1002; Conn v. Conn, 2 Kan. App. 419, 42 P. 1006; Dudley v. Dudley, 151 Iowa 142, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1170, 130 N.W. 785; Hoagland v. Hoagland (Wyo.), 193 P. 843; Hilton v. Stewart, 15 Idaho 150, 128 Am. St. Rep. 48, 96 P. 579.
A number of cases take a contrary view, but an examination of these cases will show that they were based upon statutes expressly declaring the marriages (1) void, or (2) declaring incapacity to contract, or (3) which by express terms suspended the operation of decrees of divorce or were held to suspend it by necessary implication, or (4) such statutes were held to be declarations of public policy, superseding the jus gentium that a marriage valid where performed is valid everywhere. This distinction is pointed out in Griswold v. Griswold, supra. The cases we refer to are collated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Copeland v. Stone
...Opdyke v. Opdyke, 237 Mich. 417, 212 N.W. 95, 97 (1927); Bauer v. Abrahams, 73 Colo. 509, 216 P. 259, 261 (1923); Horton v. Horton, 22 Ariz. 490, 198 P. 1105, 1105-06 (1921); Smallwood v. Bickers, 139 Ga.App. 720, 229 S.E.2d 525, 527 (1976); Estate of Sanders, 147 Cal.App.2d 450, 305 P.2d 6......
-
Cook v. Cook, 1 CA-CV 03-0727.
...celebrated, not the law of the place where the divorce takes place, that determines the validity of the marriage. Horton v. Horton, 22 Ariz. 490, 494, 198 P. 1105, 1107 (1921) (recognizing the "common-law rule" that when "[c]onsidered merely as a contract, [a marriage] is valid everywhere i......
-
Vandever v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
...common-law rule, 'all marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted shall be valid in this state.' Horton v. Horton, 22 Ariz. 490, 494, 198 Pac. 1105, 1107 (1921). 2 Justifications for the rule include predictability and the interstate order arising from society's interest in ma......
-
Medlin v. Medlin
...the laws of Arizona. Therefore, we must look to the law of Arizona to determine the validity of the marriage. See Horton v. Horton, 22 Ariz. 490,198 P. 1105 (1921). ¶9 Section 25-101, A.R.S., declares certain marriages, like those between close relatives, prohibited and void. The marriage o......