[609] Holmes _v._ Holmes (1833), 6 _La._, 463. In this state, under influence of French and Spanish law, the common-law contract appears always to have been regarded as valid.

[610] Askew _v._ Dupree (1860), 30 _Ga._, 173; _cf._ Clark _v._ Cassidy, 64 _Ga._, 662.

A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Volume 3 (of 3) — Part 139

[611] Blackburn _v._ Crawfords (1865), 3 WALL., 175; Diggs _v._ Wormley (1893), 21 _D. C._, 477, 485; Jennings _v._ Webb (1896), 8 _App. D. C._, 43, 56. _Cf._ Green _v._ Norment (1886), 5 MACKEY, 80-92.

A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Volume 3 (of 3) — Part 139

[612] In Campbell _v._ Gullatt (1869), 43 _Ala._, 57. But see the earlier decisions in S. _v._ Murphy (1844), 6 _Ala._, 765-72; 41 _Am. D._, 79; and Robertson _v._ S. (1868), 42 _Ala._, 509; being conflicting and indecisive as to whether the statute is merely "directory."

A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Volume 3 (of 3) — Part 139

[613] Jones _v._ Jones (1872), 28 _Ark._, 19-26. According to S. _v._ Willis (1848), 9 _Ark._, 196-98, consent of the parent is not essential.

[614] Dyer _v._ Brannock (1877), 66 _Mo._, 391; 27 _Am. R._, 359. The license required by statute is not essential to a valid marriage: S. _v._ Bittick (1890), 103 _Mo._, 183.

[615] Daniel _v._ Sams (1880), 17 _Fla._, 487-97.

[616] In Bashaw _v._ S. (1829), 1 YERG., 177; affirmed in Grisham _v._ S. (1831), 2 YERG., 589; opposed in Andrews _v._ Page (1871), 3 HEISK., 653-71; and apparently questioned in Johnson _v._ Johnson (1860), 1 COLDW., 626.

[617] Dumas _v._ S. (1883), 14 _Tex. Cr. App._, 464-74; Tel. Co. _v._ Procter (1894), 6 _T. C. A._, 300, 303.

[618] Cumby _v._ Henderson (1894), 6 _T. C. A._, 519-23; 25 _S. W._, 673; Ingersol _v._ McWillie (1895), 9 _T. C. A._, 543, 553; 30 _S. W._, 56; Chapman _v._ Chapman (1897), 16 _T. C. A._, 384; and especially Railway Co. _v._ Cody (1899), 20 _T. C. A._, 520-24.

[619] Hantz _v._ Sealey (1814), 6 BINN., 405; also Rodebaugh _v._ Sanks (1833), 2 WATTS, 9-12; and Commonwealth _v._ Stump (1866), 53 _Pa._, 132-38.

[620] Carmichael _v._ S. (1861), 12 _Ohio_, 553-61.

[621] Port _v._ Port (1873), 70 _Ill._, 484; Bowman _v._ Bowman (1887), 24 _Ill. App._, 165-78.

[622] Hutchins _v._ Kimmel (1875), 31 _Mich._, 126-35; 18 _Am. R._, 164-69.

[623] Blanchard _v._ Lambert (1876), 43 _Iowa_, 228-32. Since 1851 the statutes of Iowa have clearly accepted the common-law marriage: _Code of Iowa_ (1851), secs. 1474, 1475; _ibid._ (1897), 1124.