Court Opinion

ID: 9862953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:33:40.368433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:45:12.071212
License: Public Domain

CarletoN Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. In dissenting to the ruling of the majority, I am not as much concerned with this particular litigation as with the possible future consequences of such a holding. The Court’s refusal to declare this marriage void, may well serve as encouragement to other youngsters, not of sufficient age to legally marry in this state, and their parents, who approve of such a proposed marriage, to evade the provisions of our own statute by simply traveling to another state for the marriage ceremony where the age requirement is more lenient than our own. Our own statute was undoubtedly passed because the legislature did not consider that boys and girls under the designated ages were normally or generally possessed of sufficient stability, logic, or experience, to reasonably understand the full significance or responsibilities of the marital status. The legislature fixed the minimum marriage age at 18 for boys, and 16 for girls, and declared that under those ages “their marriages shall be absolutely void.” In passing this statute, the General Assembly set forth the policy of this state, and I can conceive of no stronger words than “absolutely void.” Certainly the minimum ages are reasonable, and it possibly would not be seriously argued otherwise. The majority opinion cites several exceptions to the general rule that a marriage valid where it is celebrated shall be recognized as valid everywhere. I am sure that we all agree that such exceptions are sound in logic and principle, and I feel that this Court should go further and add a fifth exception, namely, “marriage of a domiciliary which the statute at the domicile makes void. ” It is indicated that the majority would declare the within marriage void if our statute read as follows: ‘ * Every male who shall have arrived at the full age of 18 years, and every female who shall have arrived at the full age of 16 years, shall be capable in law of contracting marriage; if under those ages, their marriages shall he absolutely void wherever consummated.” 1  This is stretching the point a little too far for me, and is, I think, contrary to the intent of the General Assembly. I cannot believe that that body intended to say that our citizens, under the age fixed, could not marry in this state, but could go elsewhere for the marriage ceremony, and thus legally avoid the statute in question. The majority concede that our own legislature has the right, authorit}r, and power to declare such a marriage void; they simply say that such a declaration has not yet been made. I am of the opinion that such an intent was clearly implied by the Assembly in their use of the words ‘‘absolutely void” . . . for a marriage could not be absolutely void if it could be held legal under any circumstances. I am willing to concede that such a holding might be contrary to the majority view elsewhere, but on a matter involving public policy, the -welfare of our young people, and the sanctity of the home, I am left unpersuaded by views that other courts may have taken. It would not be the first time for this Court to adopt a minority rule; in fact, I quickly recall one case wherein we were the first state in the Union to adopt a particular policy.2 This is not to say that there is a lack of authority for the position I take. In Pennegar v. State, 87 Tenn. 244, 10 S. W. 305, a similar question was before the court. The Tennessee law provided “"When a marriage is absolutely annulled,3 the parties shall, severalty, be at liberty to marry again; but a defendant who has been guilty of adultery shall not marry the person with whom the crime was committed, during the life of the former husband or wife. # One E. U. Iiovey was divorced from her husband, John Iiovey, upon petition of the husband charging her with adultery with William Pennegar. The decree adjudged charge fully proven, and the divorce was granted the husband solely upon such charge. The divorced wife and the partner in her guilt, shortly after the divorce, went to the state of Alabama, where they were married to each other, and on the next day after their marriage returned to the state of Tennessee, the place of their former and present residence, where they lived and cohabited as man and wife. They were indicted for lewdness, tried and convicted, and appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which said: * * The legislature has, beyond all possible question, the power to enact what marriages shall be void in its own state, notwithstanding their validity in the state where celebrated, wrhether contracted between parties who were in good faith domiciled in the state where the ceremony was performed, or between parties who left the state of domicile for the purpose of avoiding its statutes, when they come or return to the state; and some of the states have in terms legislated on the subject. Where, however, the legislature, as in oar own state, has not deemed it proper or necessary to provide in terms what shall he the fate of a marriage valid where performed, hut has in the particular case contented itself with merely prohibiting such marriage, the duty is devolved upon the courts of determining, from such legislation as is before it4 whether the marriage in the other state is valid or void when the parties come into this state. * * * “Now, believing, as we do, that the statute in question, which we are called upon to construe in the case at bar, is expressive of a decided state policy * * * we will not allow such parties to shield themselves behind a general rule of the law of marriage, the wisdom and perpetuity of which depends as much upon the judicious exceptions thereto, as upon the inherent right of the rule itself. * * *” In the case of In re Stull’s Estate, 183 Pa. 625, 39 Atlantic 16, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rendered a like ruling. The statute provided: ‘ ‘ The wife or husband who shall have been guilty of the crime of adultery, shall not marry the person with whom the said crime was committed during the life of the former wife or husband; * * The wife of one Richard H. Stnli obtained a decree of absolute divorce from him on the ground that he had committed adultery with one Ada Widdup. A few months thereafter, Stull and the said Ada Widdup, both citizens and inhabitants of Pennsylvania, went to the state of Maryland and married. They at once returned to Pennsylvania, and lived and cohabited as man and wife. The court, in holding such marriage void, said (in speaking of the statute): “ * * * It forbids the marriage relation to be contracted in the most general terms. The guilty party ‘ shall not marry the person with whom the said crime was committed. ’ A personal incapacity to marry is imposed. The necessary meaning of this language is that they shall not marry at all, in any circumstances, or at any time, or any place, so long as the injured party is living. So far as the purpose and meaning of this statute are concerned, it is of no consequence where such subsequent prohibited marriage takes place. The relation itself is absolutely prohibited, and hence is within the operative words of the statute, without any reference as to where the marriage occurs. * * # As stated by our learned Dr. Robert A. Leñar, in his book Conflict of Laws, Section 132, page 273: í < * * * Since the domicile by its law has ultimate control over the statutes of its domiciliaries, it in the last analysis decides whether any effort, made locally or elsewhere, to create a status, is successful * * As was said by the New York Court of Appeals in Cunningham v. Cunningham, 206 N. Y. 341, 99 N. E. 845: < ¡ * * * It will be recalled that the parties to this action reside in this state and have so resided ever since and before the marriage. The right of a government, as well as that of the several states of the Union to determine the marital status of its own citizens and prescribe the terms and conditions upon which their relations may be changed is elementaiy and beyond question. * * * ” Further citations could be given, but I feel the foregoing sufficient to establish by point, viz., this Court has full legal authority, and could, if it so desired, declare this marriage void. Young people below the Arkansas statutory age for marriage may well be puzzled as to how a thirteen-year-old child is enabled to take a husband, contrary to the provisions of our statute, and openly live with that husband without fear of prosecution. It was admitted in this cause that Harold and Sandra went to Mississippi for the sole purpose of getting married, intending at all times to return to their home in Arkansas. This Court has now placed itself in the position of approving evasion and avoidance of our own statutes. As previously pointed out, the clear inference in the early part of the majority opinion is that this marriage would be declared void if our legislature had gone further and declared such marriages void, though celebrated in a state where same were valid. Despite this inference, there is further language in the opinion which indicates that even if this marriage had been solemnized in Arkansas, it would still be considered valid until nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction. If such is the case, I desire to dissent with even more vigor, for I am unable to comprehend what language the legislature could have used to make its wishes more emphatically known (than the language in the statute heretofore referred to, Section 55-102). After declaring marriages entered into by males under the age of 18 years, and females under the age of 16 years, to be absolutely void, the statute further provides: “* * * Provided that males under the age of 21 years and females under the age of 18 years shall furnish the clerk before the marriage license can be issued, satisfactory evidence of the consent of the parent or parents or guardian to such marriage, and, in all cases where the consent of the parent or parents or guardian is not provided or there shall have been a misrepresentation of age by a contracting party, such marriage contract may be set aside and annulled upon the application of the parent dr parents or guardian to the Chancery Court having jurisdiction of the cause. “ * * ” This provision makes it very clear to me that the legislature is declaring that marriages of males between the ages of 18 and 21, and females between the ages of 16 and 18 may, under the prescribed circumstances, be set aside and annulled by court action; i.e., those marriages are voidable, but it is quite noticeable that no such provision is made relative to marriages under 18 (for males) and under 16 (for females). The reason is obvious — the G-eneral Assembly meant the latter marriages to be void ab initio. The question of whether the parents of Sandra, and Harold Graves, are guilty of contributory delinquency is academic in any event, since they have already been acquitted by the Circuit Court. There is no question, in my mind, however, that if this Court held the within marriage to be void, all parents, or others, in the future who encouraged, aided, or abetted one under the statutory age to enter into marriage, would be guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I probably would go further and state — if the matter were other than academic — that any parent who would assist and encourage a thirteen-year-old child to enter the marriage relationship, contrary to the law of the domicile, though the marriage is valid where performed, — is contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Parents, in my opinion, should teach their children to respect and obey the law — not evade it. At any rate, as the matter stands, they (parents) may, if they so desire, continue to ignore our statute, take their children to Mississippi, consent to the marriage ceremony, return to Arkansas, and no offense has been committed. In my humble opinion, the marriage should be declared void.   Added.    Leach v. Leach, 227 Ark. 599, 300 S. W. 2d 150.    Meaning divorce.    Emphasis supplied.