McClurg v. Terry
21 N.J. Eq. 225 (1870)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage contract is not formed if the parties enter into a marriage ceremony in jest, with no mutual intention of being bound by the ceremony, and this lack of intent is understood by both.
Facts:
- The complainant, a nineteen-year-old, and the defendant were with a group of young friends after returning from an excursion.
- While in good spirits, the complainant jokingly challenged the defendant to marry her on the spot.
- The defendant, in the same spirit of jest, accepted the challenge.
- A justice of the peace who was part of their group performed a formal marriage ceremony at their request.
- During the ceremony, both the complainant and defendant made the proper responses.
- Following the ceremony, the parties did not treat the event as a real marriage, never lived together, and never acted as husband and wife.
Procedural Posture:
- The complainant filed a bill in the Court of Chancery of New Jersey, a court of first instance, seeking a decree to declare her marriage to the defendant a nullity.
- The defendant, in his answer, corroborated the complainant's statement of facts and did not oppose the request for nullity.
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 proper official, create a valid and binding marriage if both parties intended it only as a jest and never consummated the marriage or held themselves out as husband and wife?
Opinions:
Majority - The Chancellor
No, a marriage ceremony performed in jest does not create a valid marriage. Mere words without the corresponding intent to be bound will not create a marriage or any other civil contract. While the words spoken at a ceremony serve as evidence of intent, that evidence can be overcome by clear proof that both parties understood the ceremony to be a jest and did not intend for it to have legal effect. In this case, the evidence is clear that neither party intended to marry; the event was a 'mere jest' created in a moment of high spirits. Because the requisite intent for a contract was absent from both parties, no marriage was formed. The Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to declare such a marriage a nullity to ensure legal certainty for the parties, consistent with the court's inherent equitable powers.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the foundational contract principle of mutual assent, or a 'meeting of the minds,' is an indispensable element for a valid marriage, just as it is for any other civil contract. The decision prioritizes the parties' subjective intent over the objective formality of the ceremony, setting a precedent that a facially valid marriage can be annulled if clear evidence demonstrates it was entered into as a jest without the intent to be bound. This ruling also affirms the jurisdiction of courts of equity to adjudicate the validity of marriages, filling a gap left by the absence of ecclesiastical courts in the state's legal system.
