[624] S. _v._ Worthington (1877), 23 _Minn._, 528.
[625] Williams _v._ Williams (1879), 46 _Wis._, 464-80; Spencer _v._ Pollock (1892), 83 _Wis._, 215-22.
[626] Teter _v._ Teter (1884), 101 _Ind._, 129; 51 _Am. R._, 742. In Roche _v._ Washington (1862), 19 _Ind._, 53, the opposite position is taken.
[627] S. _v._ Walker (1887), 36 _Kan._, 297; 59 _Am. R._, 556.
[628] Bailey _v._ S. (1893), 36 _Neb._, 808-14.
[629] Israel _v._ Arthur (1893), 18 _Col._, 158, 164; Taylor _v._ Taylor (1897), 10 _C. A._, 303, 304.
[630] S. _v._ Zichefield (1896), 23 _Nev._, 304-18.
[631] Wyckoff _v._ Boggs (1824), 2 HALST., 138-40; and especially Pearson _v._ Howey (1829), 6 HALST., 12, 18, 20.
[632] Jewell _v._ Jewell (1843), 1 HOWARD, 219-34.
[633] Meister _v._ Moore (1877), 96 _U. S._, 76-83.
On the other hand, in a number of states the courts have decided that the common-law marriage is entirely superseded by the statutes, even when these do not contain words of nullity, and sometimes when they are expressed in terms far less "mandatory" than in some instances where the opposite doctrine prevails.[634] In the words of a writer who believes the courts are historically and logically justified in this view, "they affirm that when from a comparative study of the whole course of legislation as well as of the terms of the various statutes, it is the plain intent to make conformity to any statutory formality indispensable to the constitution of marriage, such common law is _ipso facto_ repealed, and a marriage celebrated by mere consent, without this formality, has no validity whatever in law. One such indispensable formality, at least, they find in the intent of the statutes, namely, the presence at the celebration of an authorized third person."[635] First to take this position was Massachusetts in 1810, the year after Kent's opposite decision already cited, when Chief Justice Parsons, in an opinion which has been steadily sustained ever since, but which is not remarkable for historical knowledge, held that "when our ancestors left England, and ever since, it is well known that a lawful [valid?] marriage there must be celebrated before a clergyman in orders;" and hence in Massachusetts, although "not declared void by any statute," a "marriage merely the effect of a mutual engagement between the parties, or solemnized by any one not a justice of the peace or an ordained minister, is not a legal marriage, entitled to the incidents of a marriage duly solemnized."[636] Since 1848 the Massachusetts doctrine has been followed by Vermont.[637] In the same year it was adopted in New Hampshire;[638] but in the absence of more recent decisions the law of that state cannot be regarded as absolutely settled. It was favored in Maine[639] by a decision of 1841, although the informal contract was not then positively rejected by a direct decree. The courts of Connecticut are silent on the question; but the statute declares that all marriages "attempted to be solemnized by any other person" than those authorized by it "shall be void."[640]