A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 3 of 3

by George Elliott Howard

[614] Dyer v. Brannock (1877), 66 Mo., 391; 27 Am. R., 359. The license required by statute is not essential to a valid marriage: S. v. Bittick (1890), 103 Mo., 183.

[615] Daniel v. Sams (1880), 17 Fla., 487-97.

[616] In Bashaw v. S. (1829), 1 Yerg., 177; affirmed in Grisham v. S. (1831), 2 Yerg., 589; opposed in Andrews v. Page (1871), 3 Heisk., 653-71; and apparently questioned in Johnson v. Johnson (1860), 1 Coldw., 626.

[617] Dumas v. S. (1883), 14 Tex. Cr. App., 464-74; Tel. Co. v. Procter (1894), 6 T. C. A., 300, 303.

[618] Cumby v. Henderson (1894), 6 T. C. A., 519-23; 25 S. W., 673; Ingersol v. McWillie (1895), 9 T. C. A., 543, 553; 30 S. W., 56; Chapman v. Chapman (1897), 16 T. C. A., 384; and especially Railway Co. v. Cody (1899), 20 T. C. A., 520-24.

[619] Hantz v. Sealey (1814), 6 Binn., 405; also Rodebaugh v. Sanks (1833), 2 Watts, 9-12; and Commonwealth v. Stump (1866), 53 Pa., 132-38.

[620] Carmichael v. S. (1861), 12 Ohio, 553-61.

[621] Port v. Port (1873), 70 Ill., 484; Bowman v. Bowman (1887), 24 Ill. App., 165-78.

[622] Hutchins v. Kimmel (1875), 31 Mich., 126-35; 18 Am. R., 164-69.

[623] Blanchard v. Lambert (1876), 43 Iowa, 228-32. Since 1851 the statutes of Iowa have clearly accepted the common-law marriage: Code of Iowa (1851), secs. 1474, 1475; ibid. (1897), 1124.