[510] Van Voorhis _v._ Brintnall, 86 _N. Y._, 18; reversing s.c. 23 HUN, _N. Y. Supreme Court Reports_, 260; as summarized in BRIGHTLY, _Digest of the Decis. of all the Courts of N. Y._, II, 2531, 2532, where the later cases are cited. _Cf._ especially Thorp _v._ Thorp (1882), 90 _N. Y._, 602; and Moore _v._ Hegeman (1883), 92 _N. Y._, 521. [511] H. J. WHITMORE, "Statutory Restraints on the Marriage of Divorced Persons," _Central Law Journal_, LVII, 447; Smith _v._ Woodworth, 44 BARBOUR, _Chancery Reports_, 198. [512] Bullock _v._ Bullock, 122 _Mass. Reports_, 3; Clark _v._ Clark, 8 CUSHING, _Mass. Reports_, 385; Succession of Hernandez, 46 _La. Ann._, 962; 15 _So. Rep._, 461. During the century the statutes of New Jersey have in effect, though not expressly, allowed either person absolute freedom of remarriage after divorce.[513] A different rule has been followed in Pennsylvania and Delaware. By a law of the former state in 1785, "he or she, who hath been guilty of the adultery, may not marry the person with whom the said crime was committed, during the life of the former husband or wife."[514] This provision is still in force; and, except in the single case specified, the law of that state puts no restriction whatever upon the remarriage of either person after a decree dissolving the marriage tie. Since 1832 with respect to remarriage the law of Delaware has in substance been identical with that of the sister-commonwealth, except that the prohibition of marriage with the paramour is not confined to the lifetime of the former spouse.[515] [513] The law provides that the penalties for "polygamy" shall not extend to persons marrying after having been lawfully divorced from the bonds of matrimony: _Gen. Stat. of N. J._, I, 1057. _Cf._ _ibid._, II, 1267 ff. [514] _Cf._ the act of 1785: CAREY AND BIOREN, _Laws of the Com._, III, 105; PEPPER AND LEWIS, _Digest_, I, 1646, 1647. [515] _Cf._ the act of February 3, 1832: _Laws_, 150, with _Rev. Stat. of Del._ (1893), 598.