FORNSHILL v. MURRAY.—1 BLAND. 455

more modern times, it has been considered in its proper light, as
a civil contract, as well as a religious vow, and, like all civil con-
tracts, will be invalidated by want of consent of capable persons.
Turner v. Meyers, 1 Hag. Con. Rep. 414; Browning v. Ream, 2 Phill.
Rep. 69; Shelf. Lun. 59, 44C; Portsmouth \. Portsmouth, 1 Hag. Hep.
355. It has been, most commonly, everywhere celebrated by some
religious solemnities; and, from its nature and objects, has been
held to be obligatory during the joint lives of the parties, without
the power of being thrown off at the pleasure of either or both of
them; Gordon v. Pye, Fergusson's Rep. Append, note A, 349; West-
meath v. Westmeath, 1 Jac. Rep. 183; except perhaps in the single
instance, according to the ancient and now obsolete law, where
the husband or wife with the consent of the other, become a monk
or nun professed, whereby the contract of marriage was virtually
dissolved. Co. Litt. 132.

According to the law of England, a contract of marriage is not
deemed complete, so as to entitle the wife to dower, and the issue
to inherit, unless it be celebrated in the face of the church, or with
the blessing of a priest. Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hay. Con. Rep.
54. In Scotland no religious ceremony is necessary to constitute
a legal marriage; Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hag. Con. Rep. 54;
and in England, * during the time of the Commonwealth,
marriage was allowed to be contracted before a justice of 482
the peace. 4 Bac. Abr. 531, 536. In Maryland there was a time
when marriage might have been legally contracted before a County
Court or in the presence of a magistrate; 1702, ch. 1, s. 4; 1715, eh.
44, s. 25; but other provisions having been made upon the subject
by the Legislature of the Province, 1717, ch. 15, and by the Gene-
ral Assembly of the State, February, 1777, ch. 12, it would now
seem to be certainly the most correct, if not the only legal mode
of contracting marriage, here as in England, by having it cele-
brated in the face of some church, or with the blessing of a clergy-
man.

In general it is sufficient to show, that a man and woman have
cohabited as husband and wife; have represented themselves as
such; or have been reputed in the neighborhood of their residence
to have been legally married, to establish the fact of their marriage
and the legitimacy of their children. The only exceptions to this
rule are the cases of a prosecution for bigamy, and an action of
criminal conversation, in each of which, proof of an actual marriage
is necessary. For although the action of crim. con. is, in its form,
properly a civil action, yet it is in the nature of a criminal prose-
cution; and if proof of cohabitation or reputation were received
as alone sufficient evidence of the marriage, it would place it in
the power of the parties to collude together and pass themselves
off as husband and wife occasionally for the express purpose of
profiting by such a suit. Morris v. Miller, 4 Burr. 2057; Birt v.