DocketNumber: File No. 67856
Citation Numbers: 14 Conn. Super. Ct. 511, 14 Conn. Supp. 511
Judges: MELLITZ, J.
Filed Date: 3/25/1947
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The plaintiff, a minor aged twenty, seeks a decree nullifying his marriage to the defendant, entered into at Baltimore, Maryland, on May 27, 1945, when the plaintiff was eighteen years of age, on the ground that the marriage was without the consent of the plaintiff's legal guardian and therefore invalid under the laws of Maryland.
Whether the marriage may be annulled is to be determined by the law of Maryland, where the marriage ceremony was performed. Davis v. Davis,
Article 62, § 7 of the Maryland Annotated Code, 1939, declares that it shall be unlawful for any female below the age *Page 512 of sixteen years or any male below the age of eighteen years to marry, or for any female between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years, or for any male under the age of twenty-one years, to marry unless the parent or guardian of such male or female, in person or by signed affidavit, assents thereto. Section 9 provides penalties for violations of the provisions of § 7.
Under the statute the plaintiff was not below the age of consent for marriage in Maryland, and the question is whether the fact that the plaintiff's guardian did not consent to the marriage is alone sufficient to invalidate it.
No decision of the Maryland courts has been found in which a marriage entered into by a minor without parental consent has been nullified on that ground. In Corder v. Corder,
In the absence of a contrary decision of the Maryland courts it will be presumed that the law of Maryland is the same as that in this state. Davis v. Davis, supra, 202; Hanson v. Hanson,
Generally, unless the statute expressly declares a marriage contracted without the prescribed consent a nullity, it is to be construed as directory only, and the marriage will be held valid, although the statute may entail penalties on the participating parties. 38 C. J. 1305; Browning v. Browning,
The marriage statute in force in Maryland at the time of the Corder and Lurz decisions, referred to above, differed some what in its terms from the present statute, but it is not conceived that differing conclusions are required because of the change in wording of the statute. The earlier Maryland statute was considered in Smith v. Smith, 150 Misc. (N. Y.) 833, where it was held that the absence of the required parental consent did not affect the validity of the marriage of a minor. InHitchens v. Hitchens, 47 Sup. 73, and in Needam v. Needam,
It is concluded that the plaintiff's marriage was not void or voidable under the Maryland statute because of the absence of the consent of the plaintiff's guardian and the prayer for a decree annulling the marriage is required to be denied.