[611] Blackburn _v._ Crawfords (1865), 3 WALL., 175; Diggs _v._ Wormley (1893), 21 _D. C._, 477, 485; Jennings _v._ Webb (1896), 8 _App. D. C._, 43, 56. _Cf._ Green _v._ Norment (1886), 5 MACKEY, 80-92. [612] In Campbell _v._ Gullatt (1869), 43 _Ala._, 57. But see the earlier decisions in S. _v._ Murphy (1844), 6 _Ala._, 765-72; 41 _Am. D._, 79; and Robertson _v._ S. (1868), 42 _Ala._, 509; being conflicting and indecisive as to whether the statute is merely "directory." [613] Jones _v._ Jones (1872), 28 _Ark._, 19-26. According to S. _v._ Willis (1848), 9 _Ark._, 196-98, consent of the parent is not essential. [614] Dyer _v._ Brannock (1877), 66 _Mo._, 391; 27 _Am. R._, 359. The license required by statute is not essential to a valid marriage: S. _v._ Bittick (1890), 103 _Mo._, 183. [615] Daniel _v._ Sams (1880), 17 _Fla._, 487-97. [616] In Bashaw _v._ S. (1829), 1 YERG., 177; affirmed in Grisham _v._ S. (1831), 2 YERG., 589; opposed in Andrews _v._ Page (1871), 3 HEISK., 653-71; and apparently questioned in Johnson _v._ Johnson (1860), 1 COLDW., 626. [617] Dumas _v._ S. (1883), 14 _Tex. Cr. App._, 464-74; Tel. Co. _v._ Procter (1894), 6 _T. C. A._, 300, 303. [618] Cumby _v._ Henderson (1894), 6 _T. C. A._, 519-23; 25 _S. W._, 673; Ingersol _v._ McWillie (1895), 9 _T. C. A._, 543, 553; 30 _S. W._, 56; Chapman _v._ Chapman (1897), 16 _T. C. A._, 384; and especially Railway Co. _v._ Cody (1899), 20 _T. C. A._, 520-24. [619] Hantz _v._ Sealey (1814), 6 BINN., 405; also Rodebaugh _v._ Sanks (1833), 2 WATTS, 9-12; and Commonwealth _v._ Stump (1866), 53 _Pa._, 132-38. [620] Carmichael _v._ S. (1861), 12 _Ohio_, 553-61. [621] Port _v._ Port (1873), 70 _Ill._, 484; Bowman _v._ Bowman (1887), 24 _Ill. App._, 165-78. [622] Hutchins _v._ Kimmel (1875), 31 _Mich._, 126-35; 18 _Am. R._, 164-69. [623] Blanchard _v._ Lambert (1876), 43 _Iowa_, 228-32. Since 1851 the statutes of Iowa have clearly accepted the common-law marriage: _Code of Iowa_ (1851), secs. 1474, 1475; _ibid._ (1897), 1124. [624] S. _v._ Worthington (1877), 23 _Minn._, 528. [625] Williams _v._ Williams (1879), 46 _Wis._, 464-80; Spencer _v._ Pollock (1892), 83 _Wis._, 215-22. [626] Teter _v._ Teter (1884), 101 _Ind._, 129; 51 _Am. R._, 742. In Roche _v._ Washington (1862), 19 _Ind._, 53, the opposite position is taken. [627] S. _v._ Walker (1887), 36 _Kan._, 297; 59 _Am. R._, 556. [628] Bailey _v._ S. (1893), 36 _Neb._, 808-14. [629] Israel _v._ Arthur (1893), 18 _Col._, 158, 164; Taylor _v._ Taylor (1897), 10 _C. A._, 303, 304. [630] S. _v._ Zichefield (1896), 23 _Nev._, 304-18. [631] Wyckoff _v._ Boggs (1824), 2 HALST., 138-40; and especially Pearson _v._ Howey (1829), 6 HALST., 12, 18, 20. [632] Jewell _v._ Jewell (1843), 1 HOWARD, 219-34. [633] Meister _v._ Moore (1877), 96 _U. S._, 76-83.