{"id":12337,"date":"2019-08-04T15:04:06","date_gmt":"2019-08-04T15:04:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/?post_type=kbe_knowledgebase&p=12337"},"modified":"2019-08-04T15:17:01","modified_gmt":"2019-08-04T15:17:01","slug":"under-age-marriage-contracts","status":"publish","type":"kbe_knowledgebase","link":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/?kbe_knowledgebase=under-age-marriage-contracts","title":{"rendered":"Under Age Marriage Contracts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This text explains why Edward was legally contracted to Lucy, despite the\nfact that he was under 21 when he entered into the contract.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Edward’s situation] was actually covered in a known reported case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal situation with regard to the age at which one could marry in the\n18th century was quite complex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me explain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Infants under 6 years of age could not contract any marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the age of 7 till the age of 12 in a female and 14 in a male, they\ncould agree to be married in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the age of 12 in a female and 14 in a male, they could be married,\nquite legally, as long as they complied with the requirements of the Marriage\nAct of 1753, and obtained their parents’ consents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, legally they were still infants at this stage, not having attained\nthe age of 21 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Normally an infant cannot make a contract. But there is an exception to this\ngeneral rule, is if it is deemed that the contract was necesary or for his\ngeneral benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case of Holt v Ward, a Mrs Holt, the plaintiff declared that it was\nmutually agreed between her and the defendant Mr Ward, when she was an infant\nof 15 years of age, that they should marry at some future date. They exchanged\nmutual promises to marry, and were, therefore, engaged to each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Mr Ward married another woman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On being sued Mr Ward claimed that the agreement to marry was void as Mrs\nHolt has been under the age of 21 when their promises to marry each other were\nmade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court found for her, and awarded her \u00a32000 damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reasoning was as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The contract of an infant is considered in law, as different from the\ncontracts of all other persons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In some cases his contract shall bind him; such is the contract of an infant\nfor necessaries, and the law allows him to make this contract, as necessary for\nhis preservation; and therefore in such case a single bill will bind him….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where the contract may be for the benefit of the infant, or to his\nprejudice, the law so far protects him, as to give him the opportunity to\nconsider it when he comes of age, and it is good or voidable at his election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But tho’ the infant hath this priviledge, yet the party with whom he\ncontracteth hath not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And as marriage is looked upon as an advantageous contract, for the infants\nbenefit, and no distinction holds whether the party suing be man or woman, it\ntherefore falls within the general reason of the law with regard to infants\ncontracts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore as the contract to marry was deemed by the court to be a good\nthing and a “necessary”, and was for the infant’s benefit, it could\nnot be voidable, but was binding when the infant came of age.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, even if Edward contracted to marry Lucy Steele when he was under age, he\ndid not have the option of declining to validate that contract when he came of\nage: he was fully bound, for despite being an infant when the contract was\nmade, the contract was for his benefit and therefore was legal under the\ngeneral exception to the rule that infants could not normally make contracts\nthat were legally binding, as outlined above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This text explains why Edward was legally contracted to Lucy, despite the fact that he was under 21 when he entered into the contract. [Edward’s situation] was actually covered in a known reported case. The legal situation with regard to … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","kbe_taxonomy":[257,274,273,267],"kbe_tags":[],"class_list":["post-12337","kbe_knowledgebase","type-kbe_knowledgebase","status-publish","hentry","kbe_taxonomy-clergy","kbe_taxonomy-law","kbe_taxonomy-marriage","kbe_taxonomy-sense-sensibility"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/kbe_knowledgebase\/12337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/kbe_knowledgebase"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/kbe_knowledgebase"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12337"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/kbe_knowledgebase\/12337\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12338,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/kbe_knowledgebase\/12337\/revisions\/12338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kbe_taxonomy","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fkbe_taxonomy&post=12337"},{"taxonomy":"kbe_tags","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pemberley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fkbe_tags&post=12337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}