Fisher v. Fisher 250 N.Y. 313, 165 N.E. 460 (1929) Mr. and Mrs. Fisher were on a steamship from England to New York. The captain of the boat performed a marriage ceremony. A few years later, they broke up. Mr. Fisher denied that they were legally married. Mr. Fisher was divorced, and under New York law at the time, he could not get remarried as long as his first wife was alive. Btw, this law was to deter 'loose women' from trying to seduce away another woman's husband. The New York Supreme Court found that the marriage was legal and valid. The New York Supreme Court likened a marriage to a contract. Contracts can be made verbally. In this case, Mr. Fisher said, "I do," that constitutes acceptance of a verbal contract. The Court found that marriages performed in another State are legally recognized in New York, even if that marriage would not have been valid if performed in New York. Therefore, it didn't matter that Mr. Fisher's marriage could not have been legally performed in New York. The Court found that a Federal Statute permits sea captains to marry people (46 U.S.C.A. §201), and that therefore puts the marriage under the jurisdiction of Washington DC, not New York. And under DC law, the couple could legally marry, so the marriage is valid. The basic point of this case is that, although marriage is not considered to be a judgment, and is not subject to full faith and credit, unless the marriage is violative of strong State public policy, the marriage is recognized everywhere. "Violative of strong public policy" is generally defined as something that would carry a criminal penalty. It also is used by States to deny same-sex marriages performed in another State.