Maynard v. Hill
United States Supreme Court
125 U.S. 190 (1887)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
In 1850, David S. Maynard abandoned his first wife, Lydia A. Maynard, and moved from Ohio to Oregon Territory. In April 1852, Oregon awarded David and his wife equal shares in 640 acres of land, provided that he farm the tract until April 1856. In December 1852, the Oregon legislature passed special legislation dissolving the Maynards' marriage, and David remarried in 1853. In April 1856, David completed the four-year term of cultivation required to obtain title to his tract. However, after complex procedural hearings, state officials determined that neither of David's two wives was entitled to a half portion of the tract, since neither wife was married to David for the entire four-year term. Oregon sold the forfeited half portion to Hill and Lewis (defendants). Lydia died in 1879, and her children, Henry C. Maynard and Frances J. Patterson (plaintiffs), sued Hill and Lewis for ownership of the half portion. Both the trial court and the Supreme Court of the Washington Territory denied the children's claim, and they appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court noted that Congress prohibited Oregon's legislature from impairing contracts but otherwise did not restrict the legislature's power to dissolve marriages.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Field, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
