Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1921-06-04
COURT FROWNS UPON
MARRIAGE WITHOUT
WARRANT OF LAW
Continued from page /,

t3) That the common law OF Eng.
land was adopted by this State, and
that part OF 1t which related to mar
riage became the law of this State
and was such at the time the mar
riage In question was consummatcd
f4) That while the statutes of thig
State have directed how marriages
should be performed and have gone so
far as to declare when they shall be
valid. no statute has ever declared
that common law. or non-ceremonial
marriage shall be void or Invalid.
t5) That practically every State in
this country having statutes substan-
TALLY similar to ours and in which
there is no statute making such mar
riages invalid. has recognized them as
valid
t6) That our present marriage Law
expressly recognizes such marriages
as valid by providing that nothing
| therein contained shall be deemed or
taken to render any common law or
other marriage, otherwise lawful. in
valid by reason OF the failure to take
out a license as is therein provided.
The contentious of the defendants
are:
| Cd That the common law respect
Ing marriages was never adopted In
| this State.
t2) That even IL ii was, the mar
riage In question was not a good MAR
riage at common law because not con-
| tracted by words OF present consent.
| (3D That a non-ceremonial mar
/ riage was not good at common Law
/ t4) That while a large ma iority OF
| the States OF this country have seen
| fit to recognize common law or nom
ceremonial marriage there are some
| that have nots and reason as we'll as
| sound policy require that our State
should not recognize such a marriage
! (5) That the legislation of this
\ State, while not expressly declaring g
/ such marriage void or Illegal, never
| theless. through its entire history un-
/ mistakably shows that only a cere-
! monial marriage Is valid, and by the
/ strongest kind of implicatio declares
| that a common law or nonceremonial
marriage is invalid.
In this State il has been held that
the common law of England is in force
only so far as IL has been adopted in
I lfhtAAifs tAttl ~ Adl ttH NptttEt taa Jul
condition and circumstances.
| II is argued that when this State had
covered the subject OF marriage by
! legislation. and such legislation was
/ inconsistent with the common law, Il
cannot be held that the common law
| respecting marriages has ever been
adopted in practice, or was adapted TO
our circumstances and conditions.
| 1t il undoubtly true that the legisla-
| tion Of this State representing marriage
| fully covers the subject. and shows By
| the strongest implication. at least, that
| the common law. SO far as it relates
to marriage. was not favored or appli-
cable. We are of the opinion. there
| fore, that such comon law has never
| been adopted in this State.
If the history of the States legisia-
tion is carefully considered. it viii be
found that from colonial times private.
loose or clandestine marriages have
not only been discouraged. but the eff
fort has been TO prevent them. Stat
utes have been enacted for the ex-
press purpose OF preventing "clandes-
tine marriages. Our marriage law
makes void a marriage soiemnized by
person having no authority in that
behalf unless one OF the parties be-
lieved it was lawful.