Bethel v Hillyard
| Bethell v Hildyard | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Decided | 1885 |
| Citation(s) | Bethell v Hildyard 38 Ch.D. 220. |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Striling J. |
| Keywords | |
| polygamy, marriage | |
Bethell v Hildyard 38 Ch.D. 220. [1885 B. 2119.] is an important legal judgment of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, England.[1] The matter heard before Justice Striling concerned succession to property by the child of a marriage contracted by Christopher Bethell, an English man in Bechuanaland South Africa with Teepoo, a Barolong woman according to the customs of the Baralong people.[2]
The marriage was held not to be a valid marriage according to the law of England because the customs of the Baralong people permitted polygamy. The child was held not entitled to succeed to her father's property.
Related cases[edit]
- Warrender v. Warrender
- Hyde v Hyde
- Hussain v Hussain (1983) Fam 26.
- Corbett v Corbett
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ Validity of Foreign marriage, Harvard Law Review Vol. 25, No. 4, Feb 1912 p374.
- ^ Bethell v Hildyard 38 Ch.D. 220.
 | This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
  | This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |