A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 3 of 3 — John Shaqi
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
[3] _Laws of the Commonwealth of Mass., 1780-1816_ (1807-16), I,
303.
[4] Act of May 31, 1887: _Supp. to the Pub. Stat. of the Com. of
Mass., 1882-88_ (1890), 584, 585.
The statute of 1786 is reactionary with respect to the grounds of
divorce. It is expressly declared that no divorce from the bond of
matrimony, in the proper sense of the word, shall be allowed except
for impotency or adultery in either of the parties. But in the
outset it is necessary to be on one's guard against a confusion of
terms caused by a retention of canonical usage. In this act, and for
many years in the statutes of Massachusetts, as in those of some
of the other states, the sentence of nullity of void or voidable
wedlock, on the usual grounds of forbidden degrees, bigamy, or the
like, is called "divorce."[5] For the first time in the revision of
1835 such unions, if solemnized within the state, are declared to
be "absolutely void, without any decree of divorce, or other legal
process;"[6] and this is typical of the tendency in other states[7]
to adopt what is now the prevailing usage.[8]
[5] The act provides "That divorces from the bond of matrimony
shall be decreed, in case the parties are within the degrees
aforesaid, or either of them had a former wife or husband, or for
impotency or adultery in either of the parties."--_Laws of the
Com. of Mass., 1780-1816_, I, 301.
[6] "All marriages which are prohibited by law on account of
consanguinity or affinity between the parties, or on account of
either of them having a former wife or husband then living; all
marriages, solemnized when either of the parties was insane or
an idiot, and all marriages, between a white person and a negro,
Indian or mulatto," shall, if solemnized within the state, be
absolutely void, "without any decree of divorce, or other legal
process."--_Rev. Stat. of the Com. of Mass._ (1836), 479. The
same is true when either of the parties is under the age of
consent, "if they shall separate during such nonage, and shall
not cohabit together afterwards."--_Ibid._, 479. The clause
forbidding marriages between a white person and a negro, Indian,
or mulatto was repealed Feb. 25, 1843: _Supp. to Rev. Stat.,
1836-53_ (1854), 248; _Acts and Resolves_ (1843), 4.
[7] So in New Hampshire: compare the act of Feb. 17, 1791: _Laws
of the State of N. H._ (1797), 295, with _Rev. Stat._ (1843),
293, when the modern usage was adopted. For Rhode Island see
_Pub. Laws_ (1798), 497, and later revisions; for Maine compare
_Laws_ (1821), I, 344, 345, with _Rev. Stat._ (1847), 364 (modern
usage).
Public-domain text, read in full here on 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