Graham v. Bennet

2 Cal. 503
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1852
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 2 Cal. 503 (Graham v. Bennet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graham v. Bennet, 2 Cal. 503 (Cal. 1852).

Opinion

Heydeneeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court, with which Murray, Chief Justice, and Anderson, Justice, concurred.

The last clause of section 2, of the Act to regulate Descents and Distributions, declares—“ The issue of all marriages deemed ^null in law, or dissolved by divorce, shall be legitimate.”

¡I (Marriage is regarded as a civil contract, and no form is neces1 sary for its solemnization. If it takes place between parties able to contract, an open avowal of the intention, and an assump- , / tion of the relative duties which it imposes on each other, is sufV ficient to render it valid and binding.}

The ceremony, therefore, which took place between the plaintiff and defendant, as shewn by the complaint, was sufficient to constitute them man and wife, if there had been no legal disability. But with such disability existing, it would then come within the meaning of the act above quoted, and is a marriage deemed null in law.”

The results, however, of such invalidity, as they would affect the issue of the marriage- at common law, are here provided against.

" The ceremony which was instituted by the parents, although ij' illegal and void as to them, is declared sufficient to protect their ) offspring against the stain of bastardy, and its accompanying ! conditions. The law declares they shall be legitimate. They • are, therefore, in relation to their father, the inheritors of his ( name, his heirs apparent, and entitled to look for, and demand , from him, his care, maintenance and protection. ^jOn the other , hand, he has the unquestioned right to their .custody, control, [507]*507and obedience, to the same extent as if they were the issue of* a valid marriage.

This view renders it unnecessary to notice the other questions which are raised, as it is completely decisive of the rights of the parties.

The judgment is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Steven N. v. Priscilla C.
California Court of Appeal, 2026
Estate of Filtzer
205 P.2d 377 (California Supreme Court, 1949)
Harder v. Allen
205 P.2d 377 (California Supreme Court, 1949)
Henderson v. Henderson
46 S.E.2d 10 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1948)
Navarro v. Hull
175 P.2d 896 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
In re the Estate of Erlanger
145 Misc. 1 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1932)
In Re Atkins' Estate
1931 OK 413 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Atkins v. Rust
151 Okla. 294 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
McMillan v. Greer
259 P. 995 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
People v. Pizzura
178 N.W. 235 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1920)
Copeland v. Copeland
1918 OK 597 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Moore v. Saxton
96 A. 960 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1916)
In Re Estate of Shipp
144 P. 143 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
In Re Estate of Baldwin
123 P. 267 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Allison v. Bryan
1908 OK 138 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Mickels v. Fennell
107 N.W. 53 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1906)
Lorimer v. Lorimer
83 N.W. 609 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1900)
Willey v. Willey
60 P. 145 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)
In re Estate of James
3 Coffey 130 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1897)
Adams v. Adams
13 L.R.A. 275 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Cal. 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-bennet-cal-1852.