Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1885-08-20
be divided into three classes, as fol-

present consent by parties capable as
sufficient to constitute the marriage
relation.
3. Those refusing to recognize
such consent as sufficient; and
| 3. Those where the question is IN
doubt on the decisions, Or remains
still undecided.
| It is not convenient to follow this
classification here, but an orderly
presentment of the individual state
laws touching the solemnization of
! marriages will be found in the list be-
below.
In 1843, the supreme court, Chief
Justice fancy delivering the opinion,
were equally divided upon the propo~
sitiop, whether a marriage by mere
consent (or per verba de present, as
it is styled constituted a valid mar
riage; but in 1877, opinion by Justice
Strong, they agreed that it did.
| Kentucky is the only state in the
union where a marriage without, or
by other than, the celebration pre-
scribed by the statute is made abso'
lutely void by express words of statute.
Before the statute, however, the courts
had held that ceremony was not
necessary at common law, and, there
fore, not required in Kentucky.
MARYLAND AND MASSACHUSETTS.
| Though the statutes of Maryland
and Massachusetts contains no words
of nullity, yet the courts require a
conformance with their provisions,
on the ground that marriage never
could be constituted in those states by
mere present contract, and was void
| without solemnization. And in
Maryland, not only must there be a
| formal celebration. but a religious
one; this is held to be the written law
ously. The statute which is declara>
tory of that law enacts that 1.-The
rites of marriage are not to be eel.
ebrated by any person except q minis
ter ordained according to the rites or
ceremonies of his Or her church, or by
the Friends" Once it was held other
wise, and the invention of one III Or
ders was thought unnecessary, but
the subsequent and now leading case
of Denison VS.. Denison (35 Md, 361,
1870 decided such invention to be
essential TO a valid marriage. Still,
| if Marylanders desire to evade the
requirements Of their law, they need
only step into Pennsylvania, where
they may marry by consent, or before
a civil officer, and return Immediately
to Maryland, and the marriage will
be valid
In Massachusetts, it was early de-
cided that a conformity with the
statutory prescriptions was requisite,
and that parties could not solemnize
their own marriage.
The position was somewhat shaken
by a subsequent decision, and Mr..
Justice Strong, IN his opinion, hereto
| fore referred to, expressed a doubt if
| it would be maintained; but the re-
cent and very remarkable case of
Commonwealth VS.. Nun SOC 1879
leaves the law of that state greatly de-
fined and determined.
| This was an indictment, under the
| statute, against man for improper
intercourse with a certain woman.
| He pleaded that he was her lawful
husband, their marriage having been
performed according to the rites of the
sect of which they were members at
pOO44S 1dOObAhS, CeLO Ia buC pICSCuCC
of about fifty persons. No third per-
son participated, however, and no
minister or magistrate was present.
Judge Gray, now of the supreme
court Of the United States, rendered
the decision, holding that in Massa-
chusetts parties could not, under any
circumstances, by their own act marry
themselves, not even though in the
presence of witnesses and by words
like the following:
''In the presence of God and these
witnesses, | take the woman whom [
hold by the right hand to be my law
fully welded wife, to love and to
cherish until the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, or until death us do
sever"
The parties were Second Adventists,
and these were the mans words. The
woman's response was: "And I now
take this man to be my lawfully
welded husband, to love, reverence
and obey him until the Lord Himself
shall descend from heaven with a
shout and the voice of the Archangel,
and with the trumpet of God, or until
death shall us sever"
In addition to this ceremony, the
parties had previously entered the no.
tees required by law with the town
clerk, and afterward returned to him
the certificate duly signed.
Dramatically opposed to this case is
the opinion of the New York Court of
Appeals In a case before it a little
while later. Chief Justice Folger pro-
nounced the judgment of a unani~
nous court. The question was wheth-
er an oral contract in words of The
present tense, entered into before
witnesses, first in London, again in
ship crossing the channel, and third
tsme in Paris, made valid marriage.
Though it would be SO regarded neither
by the law Of France nor England,
yet, Shy the law Of this State" runs
the decision sustaining the contract as
to New York, :" a man and woman
who are competent to marry each