1Historically, marriage represented a fundamental structure of society in the social and legal sense of the term. At the same time, it was of great economic importance (Erickson, 2005). Significant parts of the estate have been managed, expanded and passed on in marriage-related contexts. In the search for these aspects, marriage contracts are particularly suitable as a raw material. Above all, they give an overview of three questions: what resources were transferred on the occasion of a wedding? What agreements did the bride and groom make on the management and use of property during the marriage? And what are the provisions in this area that would take effect after the death of one of the spouses? Social, economic, cultural and legal issues rub shoulders with sexist implications. Since the U.S. wanted to eliminate what it sees as cultural and economic problems, and Japan wanted to ease tensions in its relations with the U.S., the two countries negotiated and reached an agreement. On March 1, 1920, the Japanese government stopped giving passports to picture wives. [7] It was negotiated as an informal agreement in order to avoid the obstacle to ratification and the high level of the national image. This left 24,000 single Japanese immigrants in the United States.

17In the first of these marriage contracts, the bride`s father, Martin Purgmann, promised to hand over two plots of land to his daughter and fixed only loose waves as a dowry (n. 1). [7] In a second called not explicitly a marriage contract, but a kind of “prescription”, the couple`s two fathers – Anton Seebaldt and Joseph Schräfl – agreed on the following transmissions: the groom was to receive a dowry of 73 guilders invested in mortgage in a quarter of a house in Innichen. An additional 150 guilders from his father were also invested in this house – it was probably an unpaid debt. The son had to move into this area of a house, or he could also rent or sell it. In the event of a sale, the father had secured a right of opposition based on the transmission of the dowry. Bride Ursula Schrafflin received from her father a choice of 200 guilders or some land to use. If she were to die during the birth of her first child, what remained of the dowry had to be repaid to the father (No. 2). [8] In a third marriage contract, Maria Forcherin, a hereditary daughter, made half of her inherited property available to groom Johann Miller for purchase.

After his death, the property could only be transferred to the children of that marriage. If the marriage were to remain childless, the children of another Johann Miller marriage would be entitled to financial compensation. In any event, the property itself would revert to the bride`s heirs, that is to say, to the Forcher family (No 3). [9] In a fourth marriage contract, the bride Maria Hinterpurgerin also had the status of owner: she owned half of a house and made half of it available to the groom Joseph Heeler at the price of 200 guilders. . . .