Maynard v. Hill

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFIELD
Citation31 L.Ed. 654,8 S.Ct. 723,125 U.S. 190
Decision Date19 March 1888
PartiesMAYNARD et al . v. HILL et al. 1

125 U.S. 190
8 S.Ct. 723
31 L.Ed. 654
MAYNARD et al.
v.
HILL et al.1
March 19, 1888.

Page 191

This is a suit in equity to charge the defendants, as trustees of certain lands in King county, Washington Territory, and compel a conveyance thereof to the plaintiffs. The lands are described as lots 9, 10, 13, and 14, of section 4, and lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, of section 5, in township 24 north, range 4 east, Willamette meridian. The case comes here on appeal from a judgment of the supreme court of the territory, sustaining the defendants' demurrer, and dismissing the complaint. The material facts, as disclosed by the complaint, are briefly these: In 1828, David S. Maynard and Lydia A. Maynard intermarried in the state of Vermont, and lived there to-

Page 192

gether as husband and wife until 1850, when they removed to Ohio. The plaintiffs, Henry C. Maynard and Frances J. Patterson, are their children, and the only issue of the marriage. David S. Maynard died intestate in the year 1873, and Lydia A. Maynard in the year 1879. In 1850 the husband left his family in Ohio and started overland for California, under a promise to his wife that he would either return or send for her and the children within two years, and that the mean time he would send her the means of support. He left her without such means, and never afterwards contributed anything for her support or that of the children. On the 16th of September following he took up his residence in the territory of Oregon, in that part which is now Washington Territory, and continued ever afterwards to reside there. On the 3d of April, 1852, he settled upon and claimed, as a married man, a tract of land of 640 acres, described in the bill, under the act of congress of September 27, 1850, 'creating the office of surveyor general of public lands in Oregon, and to provide for the survey, and to make donations to settlers of the said public lands,' and resided thereon until his death. On the 22d day of December, 1852, an act was passed by the legislative assembly of the territory, purporting to dissolve the bonds of matrimony between him and his wife. The act is in these words:

'An act to provide for the dissolution of the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between D. S. Maynard and Lydia A. Maynard, his wife.

'Section 1. Be it enacted by the legislative assembly of the territory of Oregon, that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between D. S. Maynard and Lydia A. Maynard be, and the same are hereby, dissolved.

'Passed the house of representatives, December 22, 1852.

'B. F. HARDING, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

'Passed the council, December 22, 1852.

'M. P. DEADY, President Council.'

Page 193

The complaint alleges that no cause existed at any time for this divorce; that no notice was given to the wife of any application by the husband for a divorce, or of the introduction or pendency of the bill for that act in the legislative assembly; that she had no knowledge of the passage of the act until July, 1853; that at the time she was not within the limits or an inhabitant of Oregon; that she never became a resident of either the territory of state of Oregon; and that she never in any manner acquiesced in or consented to the act; and the plaintiffs insisted that the legislative assembly had no authority to pass the act; that the same is absolutely void; and that the parties were never lawfully divorced. On or about the 15th of January, 1853, the husband, thus divorced, intermarried with one Catherine T. Brashears, and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife until his death. On the 7th of November, 1853, he filed with the surveyor general of Oregon the certificate required under the donation act of September 27, 1850, as amended by the act of h e 14th of February, 1853, accompanied with an affidavit of his residence in Oregon from the 16th of September, 1850, and on the land claimed from April 3, 1852, and that he was married to Lydia A. Maynard until the 24th of December, 1852, having been married to her in Vermont in August, 1828. The notification was also accompanied with corroborative affidavits of two other parties that he had, within their knowledge. resided upon and cultivated the land from the 3d of April, 1852.

On the 30th of April, 1856, he made proof before the register and receiver of the land-office of the territory of his residence upon and cultivation of his claim for four years, from April 3, 1852, to and including April 3, 1856. Those officers accordingly, in May following, issued to him, and to Catherine T. Maynard, his second wife, a certificate for the donation claim, apportioning the west half to him and the east half to her. The certificate was afterwards annulled by the commissioner of the general land-office, on the ground that as it then appeared, and was supposed to be the fact,

Page 194

Lydia A. Maynard, the first wife, was dead, and that her heirs were therefore entitled to half of the claim.

On a subsequent hearing before the register and receiver, the first wife appeared, and they awarded the east half of the claim to her and the west half to the husband, From this decision an appeal was taken to the commissioner of the general land-office, and from the decision of that officer to the secretary of the interior. The commissioner affirmed the decision of the register and receiver so far as it awarded the west half to the husband, but reversed the decision so far as it awarded the east half to the first wife, holding that neither wife was entitled to that half. He accordingly directed the certificate as to the east half to be canceled. The secretary affirmed the decision of the commissioner, holding that the husband had fully complied with all the requirements of the law relating to settlement and cultivation, and was therefore entitled to the west half awarded to him, for which a patent was accordingly issued. But the secretary also held that, at the time of the alleged divorce, the husband possessed only an inchoate interest in the lands, and whether it should ever become a vested interest depended upon his future compliance with the conditions prescribed by the statute; that his first wife accordingly possessed no vested interest in the property. He also held that the second wife was not entitled to any portion of the claim, because she was not his wife on the first day of December, 1850, or within one year from that date, which was necessary, to entitle her to one-half of the claim under the statute; and the plaintiffs insist that the decision of the commissioner and secretary in this particular is erroneous, and founded upon a misapprehension of the law.

Subsequently the east half of the claim was treated as public land, and was surveyed and platted as such under the direction of the commissioner of the general land-office. The defendants Hill and Lewis, with full knowledge, as the bill alleges, of the rights of the first wife, located certain land scrip known as Porterfield land scrip, upon certain portions of the land, and patents of the United States were issued to

Page 195

them accordingly, and they are applicants for the remaining portion. The complaint alleges that the other defendant, Flagg, claims some interest in the property, but the extent and nature thereof are not stated. Upon these facts the plaintiffs claim that they are the equitable owners of the lands patented to the defendants Hill and Lewis, and that the defendants are equitably trustees of the legal title for them. They therefore pray that the defendants may be adjudged to be such trustees, and directed to convey the lands to them by a good and sufficient deed; and for such other and further relief in the premises as to the court shall seem meet and equitable. To this complaint the defendants demure d on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment thereon in favor of the defendants. On appeal the supreme court of the territory came to the same conclusion, that the complaint did not state a sufficient cause of action; that no grounds for relief in equity appeared upon it; and that the defendants' demurrer should be sustained. Judgment was accordingly entered that the complaint be dismissed. To review this judgment the case is brought to this court.

MATTHEWS and GRAY, JJ., dissenting.

Henry Beard and Cornelius Hanford, for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 195-203 intentionally omitted]

Page 203

Walter H. Smith, for appellees.

Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

As seen by the statement of the case, two questions are presented for our consideration: First, was the act of the legislative assembly of the territory of Oregon of the 22d of December, 1852, declaring the bonds of matrimony between David S. Maynard and his wife dissolved, valid and effectual to divorce the parties? and, second, if valid and effectual for that purpose, did such divorce defeat any rights of the wife to a portion of the donation claim?

The act of congress creating the territory of Oregon and establishing a government for it, passed on the 14th of August, 1848, vested the legislative power and authority of the territory in an assembly consisting of two boards, a council and a house of representatives. 9 St. c. 177, § 4. It declared that the legislative power of the territory should 'extend to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States,' but that no law should be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; that no tax should be imposed upon the property of the United States; that the property of non-residents should not be taxed higher than the property of residents; and that all the laws passed by the assembly should be submitted to congress, and, if disapproved, should be null and of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
372 practice notes
  • Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v. Rosenstiel, No. 59
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 10, 1973
    ...nature at common law or in equity," of the diversity statute, 1 Stat. 78.3 The Court gave support to this reasoning in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 206, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L.Ed.2d 654 (1888), where it noted that the power to grant divorces in England had been divided between the ecclesiastic......
  • Shahar v. Bowers, No. 93-9345
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • May 30, 1997
    ...of cases extending from the nineteenth century to the present recognizing the fundamental character of marriage. Citing Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211, 8 S.Ct. 723, 726, 729, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1888), the Zablocki Court noted that marriage is "the most important relation in life and [is......
  • Perry v. Brown, Nos. 10–16696
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 7, 2012
    ...upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1888). As Justice Stewart opined in his concurrence in Zablocki v. Redhail, a State may in many circumstanc......
  • DeBoer v. Snyder, Nos. 14–1341
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 6, 2014
    ...right to marry the person of one's choice. The court located the source of that right in Supreme Court opinions such as Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1888) (recognizing marriage as “the most important relation in life”); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
368 cases
  • Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v. Rosenstiel, No. 59
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 10, 1973
    ...nature at common law or in equity," of the diversity statute, 1 Stat. 78.3 The Court gave support to this reasoning in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 206, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L.Ed.2d 654 (1888), where it noted that the power to grant divorces in England had been divided between the ecclesiastic......
  • Shahar v. Bowers, No. 93-9345
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • May 30, 1997
    ...of cases extending from the nineteenth century to the present recognizing the fundamental character of marriage. Citing Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211, 8 S.Ct. 723, 726, 729, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1888), the Zablocki Court noted that marriage is "the most important relation in life and [is......
  • Perry v. Brown, Nos. 10–16696
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 7, 2012
    ...upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1888). As Justice Stewart opined in his concurrence in Zablocki v. Redhail, a State may in many circumstanc......
  • DeBoer v. Snyder, Nos. 14–1341
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 6, 2014
    ...right to marry the person of one's choice. The court located the source of that right in Supreme Court opinions such as Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1888) (recognizing marriage as “the most important relation in life”); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Human Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment
    • United States
    • Environmental justice: legal theory and practice. 4th edition
    • February 20, 2018
    ...literally the foundation “of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Id. (quoting Maynard v. Hill , 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888)); cf. Minors Oposa v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Envt’l & Natural Res. , G.R. No. 101083, 33 I.L.M. 173, 187-88 (S.C., Jul. 30, 1993) (Ph......
  • TO CATCH A SNOOPING SPOUSE: REEVALUATING THE ROOTS OF THE SPOUSAL WIRETAP EXCEPTION IN THE DIGITAL AGE.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 170 Nbr. 4, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...(128) Goode v. Martinis, 361 P.2d 941, 944 (Wash. 1961). (129) Simpson v. Simpson, 490 F.2d 803, 805 (5th Cir. 1974). (130) Id. (131) 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888) ("Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than ......
  • Climate Change and the Judge as Water Trustee
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 48-3, March 2018
    • March 1, 2018
    ...literally the foundation “of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” 43. Id . (quoting Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888)) (citing Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 33 I.L.M. 173, 187-88 (S.C. July 30, 1993) (without “a balanced and healthful ecolo......
  • Family Law in Transition
    • United States
    • International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Nbr. 26-1, January 1982
    • January 1, 1982
    ...of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilizationnor progress’.&dquo; (Maynard v. Hill 8 s.ct. 723, 125 U.S. 190, 31 L Ed.654 As a present-day trial judge I might well conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the right to have a menagerie, rathertha......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT