Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/885

849 NOTES 849 statutes in most, if not all, jurisdictions, prescribing formalities for the solemnization of marriages, these statutes do not have the effect of nullifying otherwise valid informal marriages, unless the statute ex- pressly so provides.^ Consequently, in most states, common-law ^ marriages are still valid.'' 2 . On principle and by the better view of the authorities,^ if the parties exchange promises, whether written or oral,^ to presently ^'^ assume the 1124 (1913); Hilton V. Roylance, 25 Utah, 129, 69 Pac. 660 (1902); Becker v. Becker, 153 Wis. 226, 140 N. W. 1082 (1913). Contra: Fui'th v. Furth, 97 Ark. 272, 133 S. W. 1037 (191 1); Johnson's Heirs v. Raphael, 117 La. 967, 42 So. 470 (1906); Denison v. Denison, 35 Md. 361 (1871); Milford V. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48 (1810); Dunbarton v. Franklin, 19 N. H. 257 (1848); Morrill v. Palmer, 68 Vt. i, 33 Atl. 829 (1895). Cf. State v. Samuel, 19 N. C. (2 Dev. 6 Bat. Law) 177 (1836). ^ Mathewson v. Phoenix Iron Foimdry, 20 Fed. 281 (1884); Meister v. Moore, 96 U. S. 76 (1877); Travers v. Reinhardt, 205 U. S. 423 (1907); Tartt v. Negus, 127 Ala. 301, 28 So. 713 (1900); Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Colo. App. 303, 50 Pac. 1049 (1897); Warren v. Warren, 66 Fla. 138, 63 So. 726 (1913); Askew v. Dupree, 30 Ga. 173 (i860); Meehan v. Edward Valve, etc. Co., 117 N. E. (Ind. App.) 265 (191 7); Renfrow v. Renfrow, 60 Kan. 277, 56 Pac. 534 (1899); Hutchins v. Kimmel, supra; State v. Wor- thingham, supra; Dyer v. Brannock, 66 Mo. 391 (1877); University of Michigan v. McGuckin, 62 Neb. 489, 87 N. W. 180 (1901); State v. Zichfeld, 23 Nev. 304, 46 Pac. 802 (1896); Ziegler :;. P. Cassidy's Sons, 220 N. Y. 98, 115 N. E. 471 (1917); Umben- hower v. Labus, 85 Ohio St. 238, 97 N. E. 832 (1912); In re Love's Estate, supra; Richard v. Brehm, supra; Ingersol v. McWiUie, 9 Texas Civ. App. 543, 30 S. W. 56 (1895); Becker v. Becker, supra. See, also, Rutledge v. Timno, 69 S. C. 400, 404, 48 S. E. 297, 298 (1904); Svendsen v. Svendsen, 37 S. D. 353, 362, 158 N. W. 410, 412 (1916). I Bishop, Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, §§ 423, 424. But, the statutes were held to invalidate common-law marriages in: Robinson v. Redd's Adm'r, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 422, 43 S. W. 435 (1897); Grisham v. State, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 589 (1831); Ofl&eld v. Davis, 100 Va. 250, 40 S. E. 910 (1902); In re McLaugh- lin's Estate, 4 Wash. 570, 30 Pac. 651 (1892); Beverlin v. Beverlin, 29 W. Va. 732, 3 S. E. 36 (1887). See 191 7, III. Rev. Stat., c. 89, § 4; 1907 Utah, Comp. Laws, § 1184. In California and in South Dakota, although marriages may still be valid without formal solemnization, there must be, as a substitute for the latter, a "mutual as- sumption of marital rights, duties and obUgations." Sharon :;. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633, 22 Pac. 26 (1889); Svendsen :;. Svendsen, 37 S. D. 353, 158 N. W. 410 (1916). terms are here used as interchangeable, although there is, perhaps, some doubt as to whether marriages were ever wholly valid at common law without formal solemniza- tion. The historically more accurate view is that the earlier EngUsh common law recognized informal marriages. Dalrymple, v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg. Con. 54 (1811), See I Bishop, Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, § 405. But it was declared by a comparatively recent decision of the House of Lords that informal marriages were never vaUd in England. Reg. v. Millis, 10 CI. & Fin. 534 (1844). This decision was, of course, too recent to be an authority for the courts of this country. The marriage acts in England now make informal marriages void. 26 Geo. II, c. 33 ; 6 and 7 Wm. IV, c. 85. Informal marriages are valid in Scotland. Dalrymple V. Dalrymple, supra. The Breadalbane Case, L. R. i H. L. Sc. 182 (1867). ' See L. R. A. 1915 E, 19, 20, for a list of these states. ' Dumaresly v. Fishly, supra; In re Hulett's Estate, 66 Minn. 327, 69 N. W. 31 (1896); Davis V. Stouffer, 132 Mo. App. 555, 112 S. W. 282 (1908); Jackson v. Winne, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 47 (1831). ' The promises may be oral. BisseU v. Bissell, 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 325 (1869). In- deed, they may be wholly inferred from the conduct of the parties. See cases cited in note 14, infra. ^" The promises in an informal marriage must be per verba de praesenti. Robertson V. State, 42 Ala. 509 (1868); Hebblethwaite v. Hepworth, 98 111. 126 (1881); Cheney v. Arnold, supra; Duncan v. Duncan, 10 Ohio St. 181 (1859); Fryer v. Fryer, supra.
 * Informal marriages are generally termed "common-law" marriages, and the