A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 3 of 3Howard, George Elliott
History
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 3 of 3
Howard, George Elliott
Families; Marriage -- History
[72] Case of West Cambridge _v._ Lexington (Oct., 1823), 1
PICKERING, 507-12. The act of 1785 provides that the penalties
for "polygamy," which it prescribes, shall not extend "to any
person that is or shall be at the time of such marriage divorced,
by sentence of any Court ... unless such person is the guilty
cause of such divorce."--_Acts and Laws_ (Reprint, Boston, 1784),
118; also in _Perpetual Laws of the Com. of Mass._, I, 217,
218. The act of 1786, chap. 69, provides that all "marriages
where either of the parties shall have a former wife or husband
living at the time of such marriage, shall be absolutely
void."--_Perpetual Laws of the Com._, I, 301. This provision is
ambiguous, and might of itself seem to make void the marriage
even of the innocent party to a divorce; but, in the case just
cited, the court held: "Supposing the legislature to have
considered the parties to a marriage which had been dissolved as
standing in the relation of husband and wife, so far as to bring
them within the purview of the former statute [that of 1785],
it will follow that a marriage of persons so situated would be
void. It is true, that by this statute [that of 1786] standing by
itself, the marriage of an innocent party to a divorce would not
be protected; but the statutes, being _in pari materia_, must be
construed together, and the exception in the first cited statute
in favor of such persons, would avail."--1 PICKERING, 509.
[73] See 1 PICKERING, 510, 511.
[74] Case of Putnam _v._ Putnam, 8 PICKERING, 433-35 (Sept.,
1829).
Gradually the stringency of the early Massachusetts rule was
relaxed. An act of 1841 declares that whenever a divorce from the
bond of matrimony "shall be decreed for any of the causes allowed by
law, the guilty party shall be debarred from contracting marriage
during the life-time" of the other, subject for disobedience to the
penalty prescribed for "polygamy."[75] Twelve years later, by leave
of the court, in case of divorce for desertion, the offending spouse
is allowed to remarry.[76] A further step is taken in 1855. In all
cases, except for adultery, the court is then empowered, on petition
and proper notice, to allow the person against whom a decree has
been granted to marry again.[77] In 1864 a new rule appears. Three
years must now elapse in all cases, not excepting a decree for
adultery, before such permission may be granted.[78] Still later all
restriction as to time is removed,[79] but as the law now stands,
the offending person, without petition to the Court, may again
marry after an interval of two years from the date of the absolute
decree.[80]
[75] Act of March 13, 1841: _Acts and Resolves_ (1841), 371; also
in _Supp. to Rev. Stat., 1836-53_, I, 189.
[76] Act of May 19, 1853: _Supp. to Rev. Stat., 1836-53_, I, 976.
[77] Act of May 21, 1855, repealing the act of May 19, 1853:
_Acts and Resolves_ (1855), 823.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 3 of 3 — John Shaqi
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account