Norman v. Norman
Citations
- 121 Cal. 620
- 54 P. 143
- 1898 Cal. LEXIS 964
Syllabus
<p>31 abbi a ge—Ceremony upon High Seas—Bvasion op Statute.—A marriage ceremony performed upon the high seas by the captain of a vessel, between citizens and residents of California, who went there for the avowed purpose of evading the statute of the state requiring a license, and solemnization by an authorized person, and who returned immediately thereafter to this state, is illegal and void.</p> <p>Id.—Law o.' Peace of Mabbiage—Domicile—Motives of Pasties.—The rule that a marriage which is valid by the law of the place where it was constituted is valid everywhere, without regard to the law of the domicile of the parties or to their motives, applies only when it is sanctioned by the recognized law of the place of marriage. It does not apply when the parties seek marriage upon the high .</p> <p>seas, where no written law exists by which marriage can be solemnized, for the express purpose of evading the law of their domicile.</p> <p>In.—Law of the Sea—Common Law—Act of Congbess.—The law of the sea, as it may relate to the marriage of citizens of the United States domiciled in California, cannot be referred to the common law of England, any more than to the law of any other foreign country. It is not, and cannot be, regulated by any act of Congress.</p> <p>Id.—Btjbden of Pboof—Violation of Law of Domicile.—The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming the validity of a marriage upon the high seas, to show that it was administered under some recognized law; and if no such law is shown, the marriage will be held invalid if in violation of the law of the domicile of the parties.</p> <p>Id.—Law of Califobnia—Solemnization Essential.—Under the law of California, as amended in 1895, consent to marriage must be followed by a solemnization by a person authorized by section 70 of the Civil Code to solemnize marriages; and a marriage between citizens and residents of California, lacking such solemnization, is illegal and void.</p>
Judges: Chipman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Marvin v. MarvinCalifornia Supreme Court· 1976-12-27· cited 396×
- Elden v. SheldonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1988-08-18· cited 141×
- In Re Marriage CasesCalifornia Supreme Court· 2008-05-15· cited 139×
- John Roland Phelps v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1958-02-14· cited 52×
- McDonald v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court· 1936-05-27· cited 37×
- Ledger v. TippittCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1985-02-08· cited 31×
- Estate of Derrel Depasse v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2002-03-26· cited 23×
- Coon v. JosephCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1987-06-24· cited 19×
- Matter of Guardianship of S.A.W.Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1993-07-06· cited 19×
- Estate of AbateCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1958-12-17· cited 16×
- Helgestad v. VargasCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2014-11-18· cited 15×
- Nall v. Wakenva Coal CompanyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1930-12-16· cited 12×
- Schumacher v. Great Northern Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court· 1912-01-04· cited 10×
- Thomas v. State Accident Insurance FundCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1972-03-16· cited 9×
- Schafer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1986-04-24· cited 9×
- Estate of EdgettCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1980-10-20· cited 8×
- Spradlin v. State Compensation CommissionerWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1960-05-04· cited 6×
- Argonaut Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1962-06-21· cited 6×
- Kirby v. KirbyArizona Supreme Court· 1922-05-02· cited 6×
- In Re Estate of DauenhauerMontana Supreme Court· 1975-05-20· cited 5×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.