United States v. Tuttle
| Decision Date | 02 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 17320.,17320. |
| Citation | 12 F.2d 927 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. MODIANOS v. TUTTLE, Immigration Com'r. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone |
Woodville & Woodville, of New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.
L. P. Bryant, Jr., of New Orleans, La., for defendant.
Mehmet Modianos was born a Turkish subject, but prior to March 17, 1922, had become a naturalized American citizen domiciled in the state of Louisiana. Melahat Nazif was likewise born in Turkey. On the date just mentioned there was celebrated in the city of Constantinople a ceremony by which the parties attempted to be married. The intended husband, Mehmet Modianos, remained in the city of New Orleans, but was represented at the ceremony by proxy. By the law of Turkey such a marriage is valid, and, if entitled to recognition in Louisiana, under the federal statute of that date, Melahat likewise became an American citizen, with the right as such to admission into the United States. When she arrived, the Turkish quota of immigrants for the month of August, 1923, had been exhausted, and she was excluded solely upon that ground. Thereupon Modianos instituted the present proceeding by habeas corpus to test this ruling of the commissioner and Secretary of Labor, contending that Melahat is an American citizen.
The validity of the marriage is assailed upon the ground that its celebration by procuration was prohibited in Louisiana, and, since Modianos was a citizen of this state and controlled by its laws, he could not contract a marriage in that manner, although the ceremony took place in Turkey, where otherwise it would have been legal.
Revised Civil Code of Louisiana, art. 109, declares: "No marriage can be contracted or celebrated by procuration." The Supreme Court of Louisiana appears never to have had occasion to construe this article, either in its application to marriages within or without the state; so that the decision here must necessarily be one of first impression.
It seems to be well settled that each sovereign state (Congress has no power to legislate upon the subject of marriages within the several states, and has never attempted to regulate the effect in this country of those solemnized in foreign jurisdictions) has the right to declare what marriages it will or will not recognize, regardless of whether the participants are domiciled within or without its borders, provided that purpose is declared in unmistakable language. R. C. L. vol. 18, p. 386 et seq., verbo "Marriage"; Id. vol. 5, pp. 995 and 999 et seq., verbo "Conflict of Laws," and authorities cited in footnote No. 6; Hills v. Nebraska, 61 Neb. 589, 85 N. W. 836, 57 L. R. A. 155, and note at page 161 et seq. See, also, note to State v. Hand (87 Neb. 189, 126 N. W. 1002) 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) page 753 et seq. Hence, if it was the intention of the Louisiana lawmaker, as a matter of general policy, to provide that no marriage by procuration, whether contracted within or without the state, should be valid within the state, then I think it undoubtedly had the power so to do, especially in cases like the present, where the one attempting to consummate the relation by that means was domiciled in and a citizen of Louisiana. See discussion and authorities cited in note to Hills v. State, 57 L. R. A. page 161 et seq.
It therefore becomes a question of analyzing the codal provision, not only according to the ordinary rules of statutory construction, but in the light of general principles applicable to the peculiar subject of marriage. It is the uniform policy of civilized countries, especially those affected by the influence of Christianity, to encourage marriage as the basis of organized society, and to recognize as valid all such as do not offend the essentials of that faith. From this flows the doctrine that a marriage, lawful in the state where contracted, is valid everywhere. R. C. L. vol. 5, pp. 388-993, verbo "Conflict of Laws." To this general rule, however, there are two well-recognized exceptions —...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ghassemi v. Ghassemi
...marriage contracted by procuration, even though such a marriage would be absolutely null if contracted here.25 In U.S. ex rel. Modianos v. Tuttle, 12 F.2d 927 (E.D.La.1925), the court held that the statute prohibiting marriage by procuration only applied to marriages contracted within Louis......
-
Tshiani v. Tshiani
...history of proxy marriage in other states and the fact that Nevada has no law prohibiting proxy marriage); United States ex rel. Modianos v. Tuttle, 12 F.2d 927, 929 (E.D.La.1925) (validating a marriage ceremony celebrated in Turkey while husband remained in Louisiana but was represented by......
-
Snyder v. Buck
...Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 54 S.Ct. 684, 78 L.Ed. 1219; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 68 App.D.C. 313, 96 F. 2d 715; United States ex rel. Modianos v. Tuttle, D.C., 12 F.2d 927; Franzen v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 3 Cir., 146 F.2d 837; Hitchens v. Hitchens, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 73; Fensterw......
-
Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, No. 04-2656 (Mass.Super 9/29/2006)
...Louisiana, Vermont, and Wisconsin.7 See, e.g., Boysen v. Boysen, 23 N.E.2d 231 (Ill. App. Ct. 1939); United States ex rel. Modianos v. Tuttle, 12 F.2d 927 (E.D. La. 1925); Wheelock v. Wheelock, 154 A. 665 (Vt. 1931); Lyannes v. Lyannes, 177 N.W. 683 (Wis. 1920). Therefore, by construing sec......