Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1885-08-20

settled, for in 1870 the court would
| express 40 opinion" as TO the validity
of a marriage per Ue7b0 de present
In Tennessee, where the statute of
North Carolina was IN force, it was
held that marriages not after the
statute we're void, as also a marriage
by justice of the peace outside OF his
district. Still the authority of these
decisions has been questioned notice
ably in 1871, when they were quite
severely criticised.
Whether the clause that ''only
marriages solemnized by authorized
persons shall be good" found In the
general statutes of Connecticut, would
be deemed to nullify those not so sol~
emnized, is a matter for conjecture.
There appears to have been no case in
this state involving the precise point
il question, and it is simply undecid>
ed
The same remark holds good as to
delaware, where the statute provides
that q marriage solemnized before a
person not authorized is void, unless
otherwise lawful and followed by CO.
habitation in belief in it's validity.
In one instance in Delaware an action
by widow to recover her interest in
her deceased husbands personally was
defeated because she could not prove
that the person by whom the marriage
was performed was minister, but
only that he was reputed to be one.
The statutes of Maine and Texas are
of the directory character, neverthe-
less it is held that compliance there's
with is necessary to make a perfect
marriage.
Upop the cases it seems that in IN
diana, Nevada, New Jersey, Rhode
Island, and Vermont celebration is
probably unnecessary, still these states
should be put in the doubtful" col~
umn. A marriage by justice of the
peace outside of his district was not
void in New Jersey, nor, thought
the court. any other informal mar
riage when the statute added no words
of nulity, but later, in that state, IN
the absence of all proof of a marriage
ceremony, cohabitation as man and
wife was not allowed TO establish a
marriage.
In Vermont. there are two decisions
directly contradictory of each other !;
the one to the effect that a marriage
per Uerb0 de present was ''to be
deemed as valid to every intent as
though made before the altar" the
other, where the court could not SO
regard such marriage, without viz
tually repeating the statute"
In an Oregon case, the United States
1 ~ al M 10 IF hot Eaf 10
and California, requiring marriages to
be celebrated by some authorized per-
son and in the presence of no less
than two witnesses, were mandatory
in their character, and without the
observance of these specified formal
ties a valid marriage could not be
created. But this was not considered
La " for California, and it is doubtful
If it would be for Oregon. The statute
IN California apparently now pros
vides for just such marriages; SO alse
in Dakota, where marriage Is to be
solemnized, authenticated and record
ed, as the code prescribes, ''blt non
complinnce with its provisions does
not lnvalidate any lawful marriage.
| Perhaps, too, in Kansas, where 1t is
enacted that the marriage ceremony
may be regarded either as civil cere-
nony or as a religious sacrament,
''but the marriage relation shall only
be entered into, maintained or abro~
gated as provided by law"
Likewise in Louisiana, where the
law recognizes only such marriages
as are contracted and solemnized acs
cording to the rules which it pre-
scribes. Here, in 1875, all private and
religious marriages previously con-
tracted were declared valid if recorded
within two years. and the court, as a
rule, consider informal marriages
illegal merely rather than invalid.
Whatever construction may be
given to the several statutes just men
toned, no doubt can exist as to the
law in Iowa, the code of which state
expressly declares that marriages
solemnized with the consent Of the
parties in any other manner than that
prescribed are valid; but the parties,
their aiders and abettors forfeit GER
tain SUM to the school fund.
In Askansas, Colorado, Florida, Ne
braska, Virginia and West Virginia,
there has been either no direct ad-
judication or no adjudication at all
upon the topic under consideration,
| and they must necessarily be classed
as ''doubtful.D
There is a diversity of opinion
among members of the bar IN refer
enco to the decision of Judge Cox in
| the Peck case. One of the lawyers
remarked to a Star reporter that,
whether the opinion is in accord with
| the bulk of authorities or not, it is
step in the right direction, for even
the marriage ceremony itself is too
lightly treated now, and something
should be done to make the union of
two parties an impressive one" ''The
fact is" said he, "there are authori-
ties on each side Of the subject, mar
riage being regarded apparently in
some states as simply contract, and
IN other states as more than contract
an institution. Maryland, whence