Easements: Way of Necessity

1913 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS husband of the deceased. He had previously obtained a divorce from his first wife, and the decree forbade both parties to remarry within a year; but within the prescribed time, defendant and deceased, both of them being residents of Illinois, went to Missouri and were married. They Ithen returned to Illinois, and made their home on the land in question. The Illinois Statute declared remarriage within the year to be "absolutely void," and punishable by imprisonment. Held, The Missouri marriage was absolutely void, and therefore the defendant can claim no marital rights in the lands of the deceased: Wilson v. Cook (Ill. 1912) Ioo N. E. 222. Each state has the righ;t to control the validity o,f marriages contracted abroad between its own citizens; but such right is legislative and not judicial. I BISHOP, MARRIAGE, DIVORCE & SEPARATION, ? 873. In th,e absence of statute the general rule is that the lex loci contractus controls the validity of a marriage; hence the point under consideration becomes largely a question of statutory construction. A mere prohibition on the guilty party for a prescribed period is usually considered penal, and Iwill not be given extraterritorial effect. State v. Richardson, 72 Vt. 49, 47 Atl. 103: Ex parte Crane, (Mich. 1912) 136 N. W. 587. Some statutes provide that both parties shall be incapable of contracting marriage within a year, and that marriages in violation thereof, whether celebrated ,within or without the state, shall be void; and these are always given extraterritorial effect when the parties are domiciled ,within the state. McLennan v. McLennan, 31 Ore. 480, 50 Pac. 802, 38 L. R. A. 863, 65 Am. St. Rep. 835; State v. Fenn, 47 Wash. 56I, 92 Pac. 417; Pierce v. Pierce, 58 Wash. 662, IO9 Pac. 45. The authorities are in conflict when the statute is similar to the one involved in the principal case, that is, containing a general declaration of nullity but not expressly applying it to foreign marriages. As contra to the principal case, see In re Wood's Estate, 137 Cal. 129, 69 Pac. 90o; Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 86 N. Y. 18, 40 Am. Rep.
doi:10.2307/1276541 fatcat:cwvztartubhwxpgfx23dvcz67i