Hamlet v. Hamlet: Who Are the Parties, What Brings Them to Court?
Davida Joy McConico
June 27, 2013
CSM 530
Case Brief I
Hamlet v. Hamlet
Facts: Who are the Parties? What Happened? What brings them to court?
Andy Hamlet, Jr. is seeking to annul his marriage to Etta Doolittle Hamlet on the grounds that he was intoxicated and unable to comprehend that a wedding ceremony was taking place. Once sober, the next day Mr. Hamlet also did not affirm the marriage, nor did Mr. and Mrs. Hamlet cohabitate as husband and wife. Andy is a minor, and resident of Alabama via Colbert County. He also states that he had no intention of marrying Etta (a nonresident).
Issue: What is the question of law that is pivotal to the outcome of the case?
The question of law in this case is does a person who is intoxicated (drunk) have the capacity to enter into a marriage contract?
Rule: Analyze the court’s opinion and determine the court’s statement of the legal principle that answers the question of law: the “rule”.
Initially, the deciding judge of the trial court stated that, due to the lack of witnesses to the original marriage contract other than Mr. and Mrs. Hamlet, and the judge’s opinion that the complainant (Mr. Hamlet) and the respondent (Mrs. Hamlet) were not according the act of entering into a marriage contract with the respect due to it, Mr. Hamlet should be denied the relief sought via the annulment of the marriage contract between him and Etta. However, the original opinion was reversed and rendered to the effect that Mr. Hamlet was granted that annulment he wanted.
I agree with the latter decision. If a person is intoxicated (very drunk), then that person no longer has the capacity to enter into any contract, let alone a marriage contract. If a person can be too drunk to drive, then certainly they can be too drunk to enter into a marriage contract. Since the respondent did not deny or question the fact that the complainant was indeed inebriated at the time of their wedding, then the lack of witnesses to corroborate Mr. Hamlet’s
June 27, 2013
CSM 530
Case Brief I
Hamlet v. Hamlet
Facts: Who are the Parties? What Happened? What brings them to court?
Andy Hamlet, Jr. is seeking to annul his marriage to Etta Doolittle Hamlet on the grounds that he was intoxicated and unable to comprehend that a wedding ceremony was taking place. Once sober, the next day Mr. Hamlet also did not affirm the marriage, nor did Mr. and Mrs. Hamlet cohabitate as husband and wife. Andy is a minor, and resident of Alabama via Colbert County. He also states that he had no intention of marrying Etta (a nonresident).
Issue: What is the question of law that is pivotal to the outcome of the case?
The question of law in this case is does a person who is intoxicated (drunk) have the capacity to enter into a marriage contract?
Rule: Analyze the court’s opinion and determine the court’s statement of the legal principle that answers the question of law: the “rule”.
Initially, the deciding judge of the trial court stated that, due to the lack of witnesses to the original marriage contract other than Mr. and Mrs. Hamlet, and the judge’s opinion that the complainant (Mr. Hamlet) and the respondent (Mrs. Hamlet) were not according the act of entering into a marriage contract with the respect due to it, Mr. Hamlet should be denied the relief sought via the annulment of the marriage contract between him and Etta. However, the original opinion was reversed and rendered to the effect that Mr. Hamlet was granted that annulment he wanted.
I agree with the latter decision. If a person is intoxicated (very drunk), then that person no longer has the capacity to enter into any contract, let alone a marriage contract. If a person can be too drunk to drive, then certainly they can be too drunk to enter into a marriage contract. Since the respondent did not deny or question the fact that the complainant was indeed inebriated at the time of their wedding, then the lack of witnesses to corroborate Mr. Hamlet’s