Fisher v. Fisher
61 A.L.R. 1523, 165 N.E. 460, 250 N.Y. 313 (1929)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage entered into on the high seas aboard a vessel is governed by the law of the vessel owner's domicile, not the law of the state where the vessel is registered. In the absence of a controlling statute from the owner's domicile, the validity of such a marriage is determined by the law common to all civilized nations, which recognizes consensual marriages as valid.
Facts:
- On October 24, 1925, the plaintiff and defendant participated in a marriage ceremony aboard the steamship Leviathan.
- The ceremony was performed by the ship's captain while the vessel was on the high seas, forty miles from the port of New York.
- During the ceremony, the parties exchanged promises to become husband and wife, and they cohabited thereafter.
- Prior to this ceremony, the defendant had been divorced in New York on the grounds of adultery.
- The New York divorce decree and state law prohibited the defendant from remarrying during the lifetime of his former wife.
- The defendant's former wife was still alive at the time of the shipboard ceremony.
- The steamship Leviathan was registered in New York, but it was owned by the United States Shipping Board, which was domiciled in the District of Columbia.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff initiated an action for separation against the defendant in a New York trial court.
- In his answer, the defendant denied the validity of the marriage.
- The lower court(s) entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, upholding the marriage.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a marriage ceremony performed by a ship's captain on the high seas create a valid marriage, even if one of the parties was forbidden from remarrying by the laws of the state where he was previously divorced, when the vessel is owned by an entity domiciled in a different jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Kellogg, J.
Yes, the marriage ceremony created a valid marriage. The validity of a marriage on a vessel at sea is determined not by the law of its port of registry, but by the law of the domicile of its owner. The court reasoned that there is a strong presumption in favor of the validity of any marriage. New York's prohibition against the defendant's remarriage does not have extraterritorial effect and could not invalidate a marriage validly performed elsewhere. A ship on the high seas is considered a part of the territory of its owner's domicile. In this case, the owner was the United States Shipping Board, domiciled in the District of Columbia. Therefore, the law of the District of Columbia, not New York, governed the vessel. As no D.C. statute was shown to prohibit the marriage, the court presumed that the common law, which recognizes consensual marriages (marriages by present agreement), prevailed. The marriage was thus valid under the applicable law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the choice-of-law rule for legal acts performed on vessels in international waters, establishing that the law of the owner's domicile—not the port of registry—is controlling. This principle, often referred to as the 'law of the flag,' is extended here to mean the law of the owner's home jurisdiction. The ruling significantly impacts maritime law by providing a clear standard for determining which jurisdiction's laws apply to contracts, torts, and other events on the high seas. It also reinforces the strong public policy favoring the validity of marriage and limits the extraterritorial application of state-specific marriage restrictions.
