[643] Beverlin _v._ Beverlin (1887), 29 _W. Va._, 732-40. [644] Dumaresly _v._ Fishly (1821), 3 A. K. MARSHALL, 368-77. See also Commonwealth _v._ Jackson, 11 BUSH., _Ky._, 679. [645] _Acts_ (1850-51), 212-16 (law in force July 1, 1852); sustained in Estill _v._ Rogers (1866), 1 BUSH., _Ky._, 62; Stewart _v._ Munchandler, 2 BUSH., _Ky._, 278. [646] Hargroves _v._ Thompson (1856), 31 _Miss._, 211; Dickerson _v._ Brown (1873), 49 _Miss._, 357; Floyd _v._ Calvert (1876), 53 _Miss._, 37; Rundle _v._ Pegram (1874), 49 _Miss._, 751. [647] _Ann. Code of Miss._ (1892), 679. [648] _Rev. Stat. and Codes of Porto Rico_ (1902), 805. [649] Holmes _v._ Holmes (1870), 1 ABB., _Cir. Ct._ (U. S.), 525, declaring the statute regarding the solemnization of marriage mandatory. [650] _In re_ McLaughlin's Estate (1892), 4 _Wash._, 570; 30 _Pac. R._, 651; _in re_ Wilbur's Estate (1894), 8 _Wash._, 35. [651] It may require judicial interpretation to determine the law of California. Sec. 55 of the _Civil Code_, since the act of 1895, does not contain the _usual_ words of nullity; but sec. 68 declares that a marriage is not invalidated by violation of the provisions governing solemnization, license, authentication, and record "_by other than the parties themselves_." One or two of the superior court judges have already decided that the statutory formalities are mandatory. [652] The _Rev. Stat. of Utah_ (1898) rendered marriage void when not celebrated before an authorized person. Before this date a common-law contract was binding: U.S. _v._ Simpson, 4 _Utah_, 227; 7 _Pac._, 257. [653] See chap. xvi, sec. iii, _a_). All the other states and territories have enacted laws governing the celebration and other preliminaries of marriage; but whether these laws are to be regarded as mandatory or merely directory has not yet been judicially determined. The courts are thus silent in Connecticut and Rhode Island,[654] of the New England group; in Arizona, Indian Territory, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Virginia, of the southern and southwestern group; in Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming,[655] of the middle and western division. Of these Delaware, Virginia,[656] and Connecticut would probably reject the common-law doctrine, were the question brought to a judicial test; while it would almost certainly be accepted by the courts of the other twelve states and territories, should the statutes remain as they are. Indeed, in a number of the last-named states, notably in Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota, it is virtually sanctioned by the terms of the statutes themselves.