By their complete silence on the subject the statutes of Ohio appear always to have allowed either person entire freedom of remarriage after divorce. Since 1831 the same liberty has been expressly granted by the laws of Indiana;[516] except that when the defendant has been "constructively" summoned without other notice than publication in a newspaper, the person obtaining a decree of divorce is not permitted to marry again until the expiration of two years, during which period the judgment may be opened at the instance of the defendant.[517] But by the original act of 1818 the offender is not released from the bonds of matrimony while his former spouse is living.[518] This restriction is maintained by the statute of 1824, unless the court in its discretion, "judging from the circumstances of the case," shall expressly grant a release.[519] In 1825 the legislature of Illinois required the court in a decree of absolute divorce to prohibit the offender from remarrying within two years.[520] After 1827 this provision was dropped;[521] and at present Illinois, like New Jersey, through the remission of the penalty for bigamy allows entire freedom in this regard.[522] Michigan began with a severe rule. The territorial enactment of 1819 forbids the defendant adulterer to wed again until the complainant be actually dead.[523] This provision was not long retained; and the existing statute permits the court to decree that the person against whom any divorce is granted shall not marry again within any period not exceeding two years.[524] [516] _Rev. Laws of Ind._ (1831), 214; _Rev. Stat._ (1838), 243; _ibid._ (1843), 606; _ibid._ (1852), II, 237; _ibid._ (1896), I, sec. 1048; BURNS, _Ann. Stat._ (1901), I, 1059. [517] _Laws of Ind._ (1873), 108, 109; _Rev. Stat._ (1896), I, sec. 1030. This section applies only to parties "constructively" summoned: Sullivan _v._ Learned, 49 _Ind._, 252. The general policy of the law is against disturbing divorces granted: McJunkin _v._ McJunkin, 3 _Ind._, 30; McQuigg _v._ McQuigg, 13 _Ind._, 294. [518] Act of Jan. 26, 1818: _Laws of Ind._ (1818), 228. [519] _Rev. Laws of Ind._ (1824), 157. [520] Act of Jan. 17: _Laws of Ill._ (1825), 169. [521] The act of June 1, 1827: _Rev. Code_ (1827), 181, allows the injured person to obtain a dissolution of the marriage contract; but neither this nor any subsequent statute seems expressly to forbid the defendant to remarry. [522] HURD, _Rev. Stat._ (1899), 565. [523] _Ter. Laws of Mich._, I, 496; see also act of April 12, 1827: _ibid._, II, 363-66. An act of this last date (_ibid._, II, 543), for the punishment of crime, exempts persons marrying again after divorce from the pains of bigamy, provided they may do so by the terms of the decree or by those of the law where the divorce was granted. The act of June 28, 1832 (_ibid._, III, 931, 932), is silent as to remarriage.