[636] Milford _v._ Worcester (1810), 7 _Mass._, 48-58. See also, to the same effect, Commonwealth _v._ Munson (1879), 127 _Mass._, 459-71; 34 _Am. R._, 411. In this case it is correctly held that Justice Bigelow's decision in Parton _v._ Hervey (1854), 1 GRAY, 119, that the statute is merely "directory," relates to banns and parental consent, and not to solemnization; for Milford _v._ Worcester is cited as authority. [637] See the opinion of Judge Redfield in Northfield _v._ Plymouth (1848), 20 _Vt._, 582, holding that a common-law marriage could not be regarded as valid without "virtually repealing our statutes," thus reversing the doctrine of Newbury _v._ Brunswick (1829), 2 _Vt._ 151; 19 _Am. D._, 703; and consult especially Morrill _v._ Palmer (1895), 68 _Vt._, 1-23, holding "that what ... Kent calls the 'loose doctrine of the common law,' in relation to marriage, was never in force in this state." [638] See the opinion of Chief Justice Gilchrist in Dumbarton _v._ Franklin (1848), 19 _N. H._, 257, rejecting as irrelevant Judge Woodbury's _obiter dictum_ in Londonderry _v._ Chester (1820), 2 _N. H._, 268-81, usually cited to sustain the common-law marriage; but this objection to it is scarcely valid. [639] S. _v._ Hodskins (1841), 19 _Me._, 155-60; 36 _Am. D._, 743. _Cf._ Ligonia _v._ Buxton, 2 _Me._, 95. According to Hiram _v._ Pierce, 45 _Me._, 367, the statute of Maine, like that of Massachusetts, is only directory regarding parental consent in case of minors. [640] _Gen. Stat. of Ct._ (1902), 1086. According to REEVE, _Law of Husband and Wife_, 252 ff.; followed by KENT, _Commentaries_, II, secs. 87 ff., the common-law marriage was formerly good in Connecticut.