Book Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1922 edition. Excerpt: ...to it is the product of reverence and imagination," due to its relation to the Christian religion. Historical Jurisprudence, Guy Carleton Lee, Johns Hopkins University, p. 95-111 (MacMillan Co. 1911.) lOTreas. Dept. Doc. 2834, C. D. M. in the U. S. was also against the validity of the marriage but the court approved both rules saying: "I had occasion to consider the subject fully, of what will constitute marriage in this state; certainly, by our law, marriage is regarded only as a civil contract, and whatever is sufficient evidence of the assent of the parties' minds to enter into that relation, establishes a marriage. This may be either per verba de prcesenti, "I take you for my wife," etc., or per verba de futuro, an agreement to marry in future, with subsequent cohabitation. Where parties agree to marry in future, and afterwards cohabit, the law infers that this cohabitation was an execution of the previous agreement." Certainly the latter part of this statement needs explanation. The court cited absolutely no authority. In 1842 Greenleaf published his work on evidence. He says: "Marriage is a civil contract, jure gentium, to the validity of which the consent of the parties, able to contract, is all that is required by natural or public law. If the contract is made per verba de prcesenti, though it is not consummated by cohabitation, it amounts to a valid marriage, in the absence of all civil regulations to the contrary. (Citing Kent and Fenton v. Reed.) Gfreenleaf's treatise on evidence was a great piece of work and his statement did much to further the doctrine. There is hardly a case on the subject during the next halfcentury that doesn't cite his statement as authority. It was not sufficient to...