[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 The clause forbidding marriages between a white person and a negro, Indian, or mulatto was repealed Feb. 25, 1843: _Supp.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).
[8] On the confusing use of terms see BISHOP, _Marriage, Divorce, and Separation_, II, 214, who says: "Not unfrequently the judicial declaration of nullity is called a 'divorce.' It is properly so when the marriage it declares void was only voidable. For example, it is common and correct in law language to speak of impotence as cause for divorce;" but to prevent confusion he favors the term "sentence" or "decree of nullity" to indicate "the legal avoiding of a voidable marriage." On the other hand, SHELFORD, _Marriage and Divorce_, 365, holds that "divorce" cannot properly be applied to sentences for annulment of either void or voidable marriages. For the present state of the law this appears to be the right conclusion. BLACKSTONE, _Com._, I, 440, retains the canonical usage.