[644] Dumaresly v. Fishly (1821), 3 A. K. Marshall, 368-77. See also Commonwealth v. Jackson, 11 Bush., Ky., 679.
[645] Acts (1850-51), 212-16 (law in force July 1, 1852); sustained in Estill v. Rogers (1866), 1 Bush., Ky., 62; Stewart v. Munchandler, 2 Bush., Ky., 278.
[646] Hargroves v. Thompson (1856), 31 Miss., 211; Dickerson v. Brown (1873), 49 Miss., 357; Floyd v. Calvert (1876), 53 Miss., 37; Rundle v. Pegram (1874), 49 Miss., 751.
[647] Ann. Code of Miss. (1892), 679.
[648] Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico (1902), 805.
[649] Holmes v. Holmes (1870), 1 Abb., Cir. Ct. (U. S.), 525, declaring the statute regarding the solemnization of marriage mandatory.
[650] In re McLaughlin's Estate (1892), 4 Wash., 570; 30 Pac. R., 651; in re Wilbur's Estate (1894), 8 Wash., 35.
[651] It may require judicial interpretation to determine the law of California. Sec. 55 of the Civil Code, since the act of 1895, does not contain the usual words of nullity; but sec. 68 declares that a marriage is not invalidated by violation of the provisions governing solemnization, license, authentication, and record "by other than the parties themselves." One or two of the superior court judges have already decided that the statutory formalities are mandatory.
[652] The Rev. Stat. of Utah (1898) rendered marriage void when not celebrated before an authorized person. Before this date a common-law contract was binding: U.S. v. Simpson, 4 Utah, 227; 7 Pac., 257.
[653] See chap. xvi, sec. iii, a).