FORNSHILL v. MUREAY.—1 BLAND. 453

It cannot be cast off at the pleasure of the parties.

It must here be solemnized in the face of a church or with the blessing of a
clergyman, (c)

General reputation, or proof of cohabitation as husband and wife, is, in
general, sufficient evidence of a contract of marriage, (d)

The County Courts may inquire into the validity of certain marriages.

The Court of Chancery may award alimony; and it may also declare a mar-
riage to be void which has been procured by abduction, terror, and fraud.

No judicial proceeding can be had after the death of either party for the
purpose of having their marriage declared void, or of bastardizing any
one after his death. But where the validity of an alleged marriage, or
the legitimacy of any one forms a necessary link in the chain of title to
the property in question, there such validity or legitimacy may be in-
quired into and determined, either by a Court of law, or equity. It is
not indispensably necessary in any case to make up an issue to have the
facts ascertained by a jury, (e)

This bill was filed on the 31st of January, 1827, by John Forn-
shill and Ann his wife, Alexander M. Williams and Sarah his wife,
Andrew Fulton, and William Fulton an infant by Andrew his next
friend, against William V. Murray surviving administrator de bonis
non of Henry Somervell, and William Hubbard administrator of
Thomas Somervell.

The bill states, that Mary, the sister of Henry, by her first mar-
riage with Andrew Davidson had issue the plaintiffs Ann and
Sarah, and by her second marriage with William Fulton had issue
the plaintiffs Andrew and William; that she died leaving these
four children; that, some time after her death, Henry died intes-
tate without leaving a widow or any children, or the descendant
of any * children; that he left a large personal estate, upon
which letters of administration were granted to James Chap- 480

line, who died soon after, upon which administration dc bonis non
was granted to Thomas L. Lookerman and the defendant Murray,
soon after which Lookerman died; that some time after the death
of the intestate Henry, his brother Thomas died intestate, and
letters of administration upon his estate were granted to the de-
fendant Hubbard; and that the intestate Henry left no other next
of kin at the time of his death, than the plaintiffs, and his brother
Thomas; whereupon the plaintiffs prayed, that the defendant
Murray might be decreed to account, and to pay to them their
distributive share of their late uncle, Henry Somervell's estate, &c.

To this bill the defendants put in a joint and separate answer,
in which they admitted that Mary, the mother of the plaintiffs,
had issue and died as stated; that the intestate Henry left a con-
siderable personal estate; and also that their intestate died, and

(c) See Dennison v. Dennison, 35 Md. 361.

(d) See Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md. 251.

(e) Cited in Chase v. Winans, 59 Md. 480. See Stewart v. Iglehart, 7 G. &
J. 132, note (d).