[654] In Peck v. Peck (1880), 12 R. I., 485-89, the court declined to decide whether a common-law contract is valid, there being no prohibitory language in the statute. Cf. also S. v. Boyle (1882), 13 R. I., 537; and Ben. Association v. Carpenter (1892), 17 R. I., 720. In Williams v. Herrick (1899), 21 R. I., 401-3, the court appears to favor the validity of a marriage without a formal ceremony, if begun with "matrimonial intent."
[655] According to Connors v. Connors (1895), 40 Pac., 966, a license is not essential in Wyoming.
[656] In Beverlin v. Beverlin, 29 W. Va., 736, the judge says, "I have been unable to find any case in which the courts of Virginia or this state have ever held that a common-law marriage was held valid;" and this, he adds, is "persuasive evidence" that it is not. In Colston v. Quander (1877), 1 Va. Decisions (not officially reported), license is declared not essential; but in this case there was a formal celebration. On the probable position of the states which have not decided see Cook, The Mar. Cel. in the U. S., 525, 526.
[657] Of course the statute of Porto Rico must be regarded as preventing, not abolishing, the common-law marriage.
[658] Quoted by Cook, "The Mar. Cel. in the U. S.," Atlantic, LXI, 526. On the frauds perpetrated under the guise of the common-law marriage see also the opinion of Judge Pryor of New York: quoted by Richberg, Incongruities of the Divorce Laws, 61, 62. "It is singular," said Chief Justice Gilchrist in 1848, "that the most important of all human contracts, on which the rights and duties of the whole community depend, requires less formality for its validity than the conveyance of an acre of land, a policy of insurance, or the agreements which the statute of frauds requires should be in writing."—Dumbarton v. Franklin, 19 N. H., 264, 265.
[659] Except, perhaps, in practically getting rid of the subtle doctrine of marriage per verba de futuro cum copula: see the decision in Starr v. Peck (1841), 1 Hill, N. Y., 270; Ewell, Cases, 403. Cf. Cheney v. Arnold (1857), 15 N. Y., 345; Ewell, 407-13; this being followed in Duncan v. Duncan, 10 Ohio, 181; but discarded in Port v. Port, 70 Ill., 484; and Peck v. Peck, 12 R. I., 484; 34 Am. R., 702. Cf. Bishop, Mar., Div., and Sep., I, secs. 353-77, pp. 147-62; Kent, Commentaries, II, sec. 87 ff., pp. 119 ff.
[660] Cook, "The Mar. Cel. in the U. S.," Atlantic, LXI, 528.
[661] Kentucky Stat. (1903), 843, 844.
[662] Civil Laws of the Hawaiian Islands (1897), 700.
[663] Bodington's Kelly, French Law of Marriage, 12.