Page:Race distinctions in American Law (IA racedistinctions00stepiala).pdf/91

 legitimate. But the man and woman must appear before the clerk of the county court and declare that they had been living and wished to continue to live as husband and wife. Upon payment of fifty cents, the clerk recorded the declaration, and for twenty-five cents more issued a certificate thereof to the parties. It was not a sufficient compliance with the statute for the parties to continue to live together without appearing before the clerk of the court.[12]

An interesting case[13] which arose under this Kentucky statute was as follows: A Negro woman, an ex-slave and living as the wife of another ex-slave, made her promissory note between the time of her emancipation and the date of this law. Under the provision of the statute, the man and woman appeared before the clerk of the court and obtained a marriage certificate. Later, she was sued on the note and pleaded coverture. At that time a married woman could not make a valid contract in her own name. The court held the plea bad, being of opinion that, as between the parties to the marriage, the statute validated their union from the beginning, but as to third parties, the woman was still single and so capable of making a valid contract.

In 1895, the same court[14] held that, if a Negro man and woman lived together while slaves as husband and wife, a customary marriage was established, the court saying in its opinion: "Since the passage of the Act of February, 1866, the general tendency of the decisions of this court has been to give that Act of 1866 a liberal construction with a view to effectuate its clearly defined purpose." And a late statute[15] of 1898 further modified the law of 1866 by declaring that the children of above marriages might inherit