American marriage laws in their social aspects : a digest / by Fred S. Hall and Elisabeth W. Brooke.

  • Hall, Fred S. (Fred Smith), 1870-1946.
Date:
1919
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: American marriage laws in their social aspects : a digest / by Fred S. Hall and Elisabeth W. Brooke. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    34/136 (page 32)
    Common law marriages have been subject to many subtle legal distinctions, making a strict classification impossible. Thus in Kansas, where common law marriages are valid, persons contracting them are subject toa fine. Maryland is classed here as recognizing such marriages in practice, in spite of the fact that technically the ruling is that recognition is denied.!. In Louisiana and North Carolina it has been held that a license is not essential though solemnization is necessary. In Mississippi, however, where it was first declared by statute that a license was essential, a proviso was added later to the effect that the section is not to be construed “‘so as to invalidate any marriage that is good at common law.” Mis- sissippi has therefore been classed as recognizing common law marriages. In New Hampshire, similarly classed, the court decided that in the absence of evidence to the contrary a jury might find parties to be married on evidence that they had cohabited, and acknowledged themselves to be man and wife, but that these facts of themselves did not constitute marriage. ~, It is interesting to notice the trend of thought on this subject since Howard’s Matrimonial Institutions was published 15 years ago, as this is revealed in the changes that have occurred in the status of common law marriages. During the period considered such marriages have gained recognition in but: two states, while in seven states recognition has been denied them. In five states in which such marriages were recognized in 1904 they are not recognized now, the reversal being accomplished in Illinois and Wisconsin through statutory enactment, and in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee through court decisions. The change has been in the other direction in New York state only. A previous provision abolishing common law marriages was omitted in 1907 when the act containing it was amended, and this was interpreted as restoring such marriages. In two states where the status of such alliances was unknown in 1904, they have since been declared invalid—in Arizona by statute and in North Dakota by judicial decision,— and in one state, Oklahoma, similarly situated at that time, they have been pronounced valid. 2. MARRIAGEABLE AGE The term marriageable age, as used here, refers to the age below which a marriage may not be contracted even with the consent of parents. If, however, a marriage is contracted below the specified age, it is regarded as an inchoate or imperfect marriage, in a few states absolutely void, but in most states merely voidable or capable of being declared void on the ground of non-age on suit brought for the purpose. In the latter states the age below which a marriage 1For the decision on which this classification is based, see page 15.