Several states of the South have taken a similar stand. Maryland[641] and North Carolina[642] have thus repudiated the common-law agreement, a formal celebration being made essential to a valid marriage. The supreme court of West Virginia has gone farther, holding that not only solemnization, but also license and other prescribed formalities, are requisite. "Our statute," runs a decision of 1887, "has wholly superseded the common law, and in effect, if not in express terms, renders invalid all attempted marriages contracted in this state, which have not been solemnized in compliance with its provisions.... When the terms of the statute are such that they cannot be made effective, to the extent of giving each and all of them some reasonable operation, without interpreting the statutes as mandatory, then such interpretation should be given them."[643] In 1821 the common-law contract was judicially accepted in Kentucky;[644] but by the model statute of 1852--remarkable for clearness and terseness--a "marriage is prohibited and declared void when not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society."[645] Likewise in Mississippi until recently the informal agreement was held sufficient to constitute the parties husband and wife;[646] but since 1892 the statute renders a marriage invalid if contracted or solemnized without a previous license.[647] Moreover, in Porto Rico, by the code of 1902, the authorization and celebration of the contract "according to the forms and solemnities prescribed by law" are requisite for a valid marriage.[648] With these six southern and the four New England commonwealths must be classed five states of the middle and western division. Two of these--Oregon[649] since 1870 and Washington[650] since 1892--have proceeded by judicial decree; and three--California[651] in 1895, Utah[652] in 1898, and New York[653] in 1901--have superseded the common-law agreement by statutes containing the nullifying clause. [641] The common-law marriage was sustained in Cheseldine _v._ Brewer (1739), 1 HAR. AND MCH., 152; overruled and the opposite doctrine supported in Denison _v._ Denison (1871), 35 _Md._, 361. In Jackson _v._ Jackson (1894), 80 _Md._, 176-96, it is held that the "fact that the marriage was performed by a clergyman may be inferred from the evidence." _Cf._ BISHOP, _Mar., Div., and Sep._, I, sec. 416, p. 179. [642] S. _v._ Samuel (1836), 2 DEV. AND BAT., 177-85; followed in S. _v._ Patterson (1842), 2 IREDELL, _N. C._, 346-60; left undecided in S. _v._ Ta-cha-na-tah (1870), 64 _N. C._, 614. _Cf._ S. _v._ Robbins (1845), 6 IREDELL, _N. C._, 23-27, where apparently a celebration, but not a license, is held essential to a valid marriage (25); and especially S. _v._ Wilson (1897), 121 _N. C._, 657, where it is declared that a marriage "pretendedly celebrated before a person not authorized would be a nullity."