Maynard v. Hill
8 S. Ct. 723, 125 U.S. 190, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1927 (1888)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Marriage is not a contract within the meaning of the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but rather a social institution subject to the sovereign control of the legislature. Therefore, a legislative act granting a divorce is a valid exercise of a territory's legislative power over a "rightful subject of legislation."
Facts:
- David Maynard and Lydia Maynard were married in Vermont and later moved to Ohio, where they had two children.
- In 1850, David Maynard left his family in Ohio and traveled to the Oregon Territory, promising he would send for them later.
- Maynard settled on a 640-acre parcel of land in the territory under the Donation Act of 1850, which granted land to married settlers who cultivated it for four years.
- Maynard never sent for his family nor provided them with any financial support.
- On December 22, 1852, the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Oregon passed a special act dissolving the marriage between David and Lydia Maynard.
- Lydia Maynard had no notice of the divorce action and was still residing in Ohio at the time.
- After the legislative divorce, David Maynard married another woman, completed the four-year residency requirement on his land claim, and received title to the land.
- Following David Maynard's death, Lydia Maynard's heirs asserted a claim to half of the land, arguing the legislative divorce was invalid.
Procedural Posture:
- Heirs of Lydia Maynard filed a suit in a trial court in the Territory of Washington to claim a portion of David Maynard's land grant.
- The trial court found in favor of the defendants (heirs of David Maynard and his second wife).
- The Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiffs (Lydia Maynard's heirs) then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 special act passed by a territorial legislature dissolving a marriage violate the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from impairing the obligation of contracts?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Field
No. A legislative act granting a divorce is a valid exercise of legislative power and does not violate the Contract Clause of the Constitution. Historically, both English Parliament and American colonial and state legislatures exercised the power to grant divorces, establishing it as a "rightful subject of legislation." The court reasoned that marriage, while initiated by consent, is not a mere contract but a social institution or status. Unlike private contracts that can be modified or dissolved by the parties, the marriage relation is governed by the state for the good of society. The Contract Clause was intended to protect contracts concerning property and vested economic rights, not social relations like marriage. Because the legislative divorce was valid, Lydia Maynard's spousal relationship to David ended before his property rights in the land fully vested upon completion of the four-year residency. Therefore, she had no claim to the property.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal distinction between marriage as a social status and a private contract, affirming the state's broad authority to regulate domestic relations. By holding that the Contract Clause does not apply to the marital relation, the Court grants legislatures significant power over the formation and dissolution of marriage, unless limited by their own state constitutions. The ruling also clarifies the nature of property rights under federal land grant statutes, establishing that such rights are inchoate and do not vest until all statutory conditions are met, meaning a divorce can extinguish a spouse's potential future interest in the property.
Unlock the full brief for Maynard v. Hill