1. Introduction
2. The Right to Procreate
  2.1 Skinner v. Okla.
  2.2 Wiscon. v. Oakley
  2.3 Involuntary Sterilization
  2.4 Kin Selection
  2.5 Marriage
  2.5.1 Anonymous
  2.5.2 Tompkins v. Tompkins
  2.5.3 Williams v. Williams
  2.6 Transgender Marriage
  2.7 Polygamy
  2.8 Prostitution
  In Brief
3. Who Is My Family?
3.1 Family Identity and the Right to Associate with Kin
  3.2 Marriage and the Paternity Presumption
  3.2.1 Jones v. Trojak
  3.2.2 Michael H. v. Gerald D.
  3.2.3 William "TT" v. Siobhan "HH"
3.3 Paternity Estoppel
3.4 Equitable Parenthood
3.5 Duty to Support
  3.6 The Paramour Statute
  3.7 Maternal Transmission of Citizenship
  In Brief
4. Whose Child Is This?
  4.1 The Surrogate Cases
  4.1.1 Johnson v. Calvert
  4.1.2 Belsito v. Clark
  4.2 Shotgun Weddings
  4.2.1 Fairchild v. Fairchild
  4.2.2 Gard v. Gard
  4.2.3 B. v. S.
  In Brief
5. Shopping For Eggs & Sperm
  5.1 Bad Sperm
  5.2 Cryogenic Orphans & Waifs
  5.2.1 Gifts of Sperm
  5.2.2 Who Is My Father?
  In Brief
6. Sexual Orientation
  6.1 The Right to Practice One’s Sexual Orientation
  6.2 Discriminating on the Basis of Sexual Orientation
6.3 Same-sex Adoption
6.4 Same-sex Marriages
  In Brief

4.2.1. Nettie F. Fairchild v. William G. Fairchild

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY

43 N.J. Eq. 473; 11 A. 426; 1887 N.J. Super. LEXIS 209

October, 1887, Decided

BIRD, V. C.

The sixth exception to the answer goes to that part in which the defendant sets up what may be said to be his reason or excuse, without so saying, for abandoning the complainant and procuring his alleged divorce in the state of Kansas, and in which, it is to be inferred, consists the fraud that was previously adverted to in the answer, namely, “that on the 10th day of August, 1885, the complainant came to the defendant on board the steamer 'Minnie Carroll,' and told the defendant that she was in trouble--meaning that she was in a family way; and that because of such charge on her part, he, believing it to be true, and knowing that he had had connection with her twice previously, consented to marry her, and did marry her immediately afterwards, which charges he soon discovered were false." In determining whether or this exception is well taken or not, I must determine whether or not the matter thus set up in the answer constitutes a legal defence to the complainant's suit for maintenance. What, then, is this part of the defence? It is that the complainant and defendant met at the house of the complainant's father, which was her home, and that on two occasions the defendant had sexual intercourse with her there, and that in a short time thereafter they met again on board a steamboat, when she told him that she was in trouble by him, and that, believing her statement, he married her; and that, although he married her, there was no previous promise of marriage, and no affection on his part towards the complainant, nor on her part towards him; and that her statement that she was with child by him was untrue.

In my judgment all this is no defence to a suit for alimony. The first particular that arrests the attention is, not that Mrs. Fairchild was a lewd woman, not that she submitted to the lustful desires of Mr. Fairchild, but that she spoke falsely to him respecting the results. Had he been as thoughtful as he was greedy, he would have expected just such an appeal; and, if he had not felt himself guilty of a great wrong, he would not have been so readily overcome by her tender appeal. When, after mutual consent to such transgression, the parties deliberately consent to the marriage contract, and to the solemn performance of the marriage ceremony, the fact that the wife has falsely declared herself to be with child by the husband, as an inducement for him to marry her, is no ground for annulling the marriage or resisting a claim for maintenance. They are equally filthy and abominable in the eye of the law. The law will require each to fulfill their obligations. Seilheimer v. Seilheimer, 40 N.J. Eq. 412, 2 A. 376; States v. States, 37 N.J. Eq. 195.