
    Morgan vs. McGhee.
    All marriages of a foreign country, consummated in pursuance of the forms and usages of such country, are recognized as valid by the laws of Tennessee; and therefore a marriage consummated according to the usages of the Cherokee tribe of Indians within that portion of Cherokee country which is within the limits of Tennessee, yet before the extension of the laws of Tennessee over it, was held valid.
    Margaret Morgan instituted this action of detinue, for slaves, in the Circuit Court of Monroe county, against John McGhee. McGhee pleaded that plaintiff was the wife of Gideon Morgan, and being a feme covert, had no right to sue. Issue was taken on this plea, and the case was tried by Judge R. M. Anderson, and a jury of.Monxoe county, at the September term, 1844.
    It appeared that McGhee had purchased the slaves at execution sale against Gideon Morgan; that Gideon Morgan and Margaret Morgan, alias Sevier, were married according to the usages of the Cherokee tribe of Indians in that part of the territory of the Cherokees which was within the limits of the State of Tennessee, in 1813; that all that was necessary by their usages was a public agreement to live together as man and wife; that they afterwards lived together as man and wife; that in 1818 they were married according to the ceremonies of the laws of Tennessee in the Cherokee country and before the laws of Tennessee had been extended over it; that Margaret Morgan and Gideon Morgan removed to Monroe county, and had some five or six children, who went by the name of Morgan; that he was a white man and she was a half-blood Cherokee, and that he prosecuted her claim to a portion of land in the Cherokee territory, reserved by treaty; that the slaves in controversy were delivered to Margaret Morgan in 1828 by her mother, &c. The Judge charged the jury, that if Margaret Morgan, alias Sevier, was married to Gideon Morgan within the limits of the Cherokee territory according to the usages of that tribe, the laws of Tennessee would recognize the marriage as valid.
    The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, and judgment was rendered thereupon, from which the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Van Dyke and Gaut, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Lyon and Crozier, for defendant in error.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant pleads in abatement, that the plaintiff is a feme covert, upon which plea there is issue. The proof shows, that the plaintiff, Margaret Morgan and one Gideon Morgan were married in the Cherokee Nation of Indians according to the forms and ceremonies of the tribe sometime in the year 1813; that Margaret was a Cherokee .woman residing in the Nation; that she and Morgan lived together many years as man and wife, and had a large family of children; that they are now living apart, and that he is alive. Upon this proof the jury found that the plaintiff was a feme covert.

We think the testimony supports the verdict. Our courts of justice recognize as valid all marriages of a foreign country if made in pursuance of the forms and usages of that country; and there is no reason why a marriage made and consummated in an Indian Nation should be subject to a different rule of action. The fact, that a portion of the lands inhabited by the Cherokee Indians was within the limits of the State of Tennessee, and that the marriage took place within that portion, cannot effect the question. The Nation of Cherokees was at the time independent of the State of Tennessee; her laws and. usages had not been extended over it, and were not obligatory or binding upon it.

To hold this marriage to be void would be. to vitiate all the marriages made in the Nation, and might be productive of much mischief.

.Note — As to what constitutes a valid marriage by the laws of Tennessee. See Bashaw vs. State, 1 Yerg. 177: Grisham fy Ligan vs. State, 2 Yerg. 589. Sellars vs , Davis, 4 Yerg. 503.

As to foreign marriages the general principle is, that the lex loci is the governing rule in deciding upon their validity or invalidity, as in all other personal contracts. The lex loci is to be considered in expounding or enforcing a contract, not from a blind deference or comity towards a foreign law, but because it is presumed that the parties had in view the laws of the country in which the contract was entered into, and that they meant to be governed by it. It is of the essence of the subject matter to ascertain the meaning of the parties. Therefore, the courts of the country where the question arises resort to the law of the country where the contract was made, not ex comitate but ex debito justitice. A marriage good by uthe laws of the country where consummated, is held good in all others where the question of its validity may arise. Shel-ford on Marriage and Divorce,.114: Warrenderv s. Warrender. 2 Clark & F.: 9 Bligh. 110: Story on Confl. L. 36: 2 Kent, 457: 2 East,- 453: 1 Bland. 485. A marriage celebrated abroad, and being void where celebrated, is invalid in England. Shelf. 123: 2 Hagg. 419.

The contract of marriage is a stable and sacred contract of natural as well as municipal law. 4 John. Ch. 501, 503.

The Circuit Judge committed no error in refusing a new trial. J udgment affirmed.  