[1073] Case of Almond v. Almond (1823), 4 Rand., Rep., 662-68; also in 15 Am. Decisions, 781.
[1074] Bishop, op. cit., I, §§ 1394, 1395; following Fonblanque, Equity, 97, note. In Helms v. Franciscus, 12 Bland, 544 ff., it is taken for granted that the equity judges of the commonwealth assumed the jurisdiction in question as naturally coming to them; nothing is said of a statute conferring it.
[1075] The subject is worked out in detail by Bishop, op. cit., I, §§ 1383-1421.
[1076] Case of Galwith v. Galwith, 4 Harris and McHenry, Reports, 477, 478.
[1077] The act of 1639, engrossed but not finally approved, gave the so-called "county court" power in certain matrimonial causes belonging properly to ecclesiastical courts: but this tribunal was really the predecessor of the provincial court: Bozman, Hist. of Md., 106, 128, 129, 131, 604.
[1078] Macnamara's case, 2 Bland, 566, note: Bishop, op. cit., I, § 1396 n. 3.
[1079] Case of Farnshill v. Murray, 1 Bland, 479 ff.; 18 Am. Decisions, 344-50. Cf. the case of Utterton v. Tewsh, Ferguson's Reports of Consist. Court of Sc. (1811), 23.
[1080] That is, for cruelty and adultery: case of Helms v. Franciscus (1830), 2 Bland, 544 ff.; 20 Am. Decisions, 402 ff. Cf. the case of Wallingsford v. Wallingsford, 6 Har. and J., 485.
[1081] By the same act it is provided that "the general court may inquire into, hear and determine, either on indictment or petition of either of the parties, the validity of any marriage, and may declare any marriage, contrary to the table in this act [table of forbidden degrees] or any second marriage, the first subsisting, null and void," with appeal to the "court of appeals."—Laws of Md. (Annapolis, 1799), I, Feb., 1777, c. xii, par. xiv, xv.
[1082] Jamison v. Jamison, 4 Md. Ch., 289, 295. This case is thus more liberal than Helms v. Franciscus just cited.