Wheeler v. Campbell
1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 297, 108 P. 669, 12 Cal. App. 707 (1910)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A relationship between slaves, commonly referred to as a slave marriage, is not a legally valid marriage because slaves lack the capacity to contract and the relationship's duties are incompatible with the master's rights. For such a union to be legally recognized, it must be ratified by the couple through continued cohabitation as husband and wife after their emancipation.
Facts:
- Basil Campbell and Mary Stephens were both slaves owned by Catherine Stephens in Cooper County, Missouri.
- Mary Stephens was already in a 'slave marriage' with Abraham Wheeler, who was still alive but had been sold to an owner approximately 50 miles away.
- Around 1848, Basil, then about 18, and Mary, about 40, began cohabiting with their owner's permission, which was customary among slaves.
- During their cohabitation, they had two sons, G. Wyatt Wheeler and John W. Wheeler.
- In 1854, Basil Campbell left for California and never communicated with Mary Stephens again.
- After gaining his freedom, Basil Campbell legally married Rebecca Dolton in California in 1866, while Mary Stephens was still alive.
- Mary Stephens moved to Texas in 1861 and died there around 1887.
- Following Rebecca's death, Basil Campbell entered into another legal marriage with Mary Jane Campbell in 1893.
Procedural Posture:
- G. Wyatt Wheeler and John W. Wheeler filed a petition for partial distribution of Basil Campbell's estate in the trial court, claiming to be his legitimate sons and heirs.
- Mary Jane Campbell, the executrix and surviving wife, and Leonora Williams, a devisee, opposed the petition.
- The trial court found that the petitioners were not the children of a valid marriage and were not heirs at law of Basil Campbell.
- The trial court entered an order denying the petition for distribution.
- The petitioners, G. Wyatt Wheeler and John W. Wheeler, appealed the trial court's order to the District Court of Appeal.
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 relationship between two slaves, entered into according to custom but without the legal capacity to contract and subject to termination by their master, constitute a valid marriage for the purpose of establishing the legitimacy of their children as heirs?
Opinions:
Majority - Chipman, P. J.
No. A relationship between slaves does not constitute a valid marriage because it lacks the essential elements of a legal marital contract. The court reasoned that marriage is a civil contract requiring the consent of parties legally capable of contracting for life. Slaves were legally incapable of entering into any contract, including marriage. Furthermore, the essential duties and rights of a marriage, such as permanence, mutual cohabitation, and spousal support, were fundamentally incompatible with the paramount authority and rights of a slave owner, who could separate the couple at will. The court also noted that Basil and Mary never ratified their relationship by cohabiting after emancipation; instead, Basil moved away and entered into a formal, legal marriage with another woman in California, effectively repudiating any prior relationship. Therefore, because no valid marriage existed, their children are not legitimate heirs.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal doctrine that slave marriages were void ab initio under the common law due to slaves' incapacity to contract and the inherent conflicts with the institution of slavery. It establishes a critical precedent that such relationships could only gain legal force if ratified by the parties through continued matrimonial cohabitation after emancipation. The case illustrates how the legal disabilities imposed by slavery continued to affect property and inheritance rights long after abolition, creating a high bar for the descendants of slaves to establish legitimacy and heirship based on these historical unions.
