It seems to be generally admitted, and is certainly a doctrine of English and American law, that a marriage which is valid * in the place where it is contracted is valid every where. (v) The necessity and propriety of this rule are

(u) Beckford v. Wade, 17 Ves. 87. And see Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat 861.

(v) In England this may be considered an established law, at least since 1768, when the case of Compton v. Bearcroft was decided. That case is thus stated in Boiler's Nisi Prius, pp. 113, 114: "The appellant and respondent, both English subjects, and the appellant being under age, ran away, without the consent of her guardian, and were married in Scotland, and on a suit brought in the spiritual court to annul the marriage, it was holden that the marriage was good." An account of this case will be found also in Middleton v. Jan verm, 2 Hagg. Consist. R. 443. The case of Conway v. Beazley, 8 Hagg. Consist R. 639, has been supposed to hold an opposite doctrine; but this case only decides that a Scotch divorce, where the husband and wife were domiciled in England at the time, and had been married in England, is void there. See remarks on this case in Bishop's valuable work on Marriage and Divorce, §§ 127,128. The same rule is generally held in this country. Thus, in Medway v. Needham, 16 Mass. 167, where parties incapable by the law of Massachusetts, of contracting marriage with each other, by reason of one of them being a white person and the other a negro, went, for the express purpose of evading the law, into Rhode Island, where such marriages are allowed, and were there married, and immediately returned, it was held, that the marriage, being good in Rhode Island, was good in Massachusetts. And Parker, C. J., said: "According to the case settled in England by the ecclesiastical court, and recognized by the courts of common law, the marriage is to be held valid or otherwise according to the laws of the place where it is contracted; although the parties went to the foreign country with an intention to evade the laws of their own. This doctrine is repugnant to the general principles of law relating to contracts; for a fraudulent evasion of the laws of the country where the parties have their domicil could not, except in the contract of marriage, be protected under the general principle. Thus, parties intending to make a usurious bargain cannot give validity to a contract, in which more than the lawful interest of their country is secured, by passing into another territory where there may be no restriction of interest, or where it is established at a higher rate, and there fication. A marriage made elsewhere * would not be ac knowledged as valid in a State the law of which forbade it so obvious and so * stringent, that it can hardly be called in question. Nevertheless it must be subject to some qualiexecuting a contract before agreed upon. The exception in favor of marriages to contracted most be founded on principles of policy, with a view to prevent the disastrous consequences to the issue of such marriages, as well as to avoid the public mischief which would result from the loose state in which people so situated would live." So in Putnam v. Putnam, 8 Pick. 488, where parties, both resident in Massachusetts, where one of them having been divorced for his adultery, was therefore prohibited under a general statute from contracting marriage while his late wife was living, went, in order to evade this statute, into the adjoining State of Connecticut, where no such prohibition existed, and were there married, and immediately returned, the marriage was held to be good in Massachusetts. Parker, C. J., in delivering the Judgment of the court, after referring to the case of Medway v. Needham, said: "This decision covers the whole ground of the present case, and to decide this against the petitioner would be to overrule that decision. The court were aware of all the objections to the doctrine maintained in that case, and knew it to be vexata quoestio among civilians; but they adopted the rule of the law of England on this subject, on the same ground it was adopted there, namely, the extreme danger and difficulty of vacating a marriage, which by the laws of the country where it was entered into was valid. The condition of parties thus situated, the effect upon their innocent offspring, and the outrage to public morals, were considered as strong and decisive reasons for giving place to the laws of the foreign country, not merely on account of comity, for that would not be offended by declaring null a contract made in violation of the laws of the State in which the parties lived, by evasion, but from general policy; nor will the same principle be necessarily applied to contracts of a different nature, -usurious, gaming, or others made unlawful by statute or common law; for comity will not require that the subjects of one country shall be allowed to protect themselves in the violation of its laws, by assuming obligations under another jurisdiction, purposely to avoid the effect of those laws. The law on this subject having been declared by this court ten years ago, in the case before cited, it is binding upon us and the community, until the legislature shall see fit to alter it. If it shall be found inconvenient, or repugnant to sound principle, it may be expected that the legislature will explicitly enact, that marriages contracted within another State, which if entered into here would be void, shall have no force within this Commonwealth. But it is a subject which whenever taken into consideration, will be found to require the exercise of the highest wisdom." This judgment was pronounced in 1829. But in 1885, at the time of the passage of the Revised Statutes, the legislature interfered by enact ing as follows: "When any persons, resident in this State, shall undertake to contract a marriage, contrary to the preceding provisions of this chapter, and shall, in order to evade those provisions, and with an intention of returning to reside in this State, go into another State or country, and there have their marriage solemnized, and shall afterwards return and reside here, such marriage shall be deemed void in this State." Rev. Stat ch. 76, sect 6. As to what cases this statute embraces, see Sutton v. Warren, 10 Met 451; Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Cush. 49. The case of Williams v. Oates, 5 Ired. 535, contains a doctrine materially different from that of the Massachusetts cases above cited. That was a petition by the plaintiff, as widow of the defendant's intestate, for an allowance out of his estate. It appeared that the plaintiff had formerly intermarried with one Allen in North Carolina, both being domiciled there. Her husband afterwards instituted a suit against her for a divorce for cause of adultery on her part, in which there was a decree divorcing him a vinculo matrimonii. Afterwards the plaintiff and the defendant's intestate, both being citizens of North Carolina, and domiciled there, with the purpose of evading the laws of that State, which prohibited her from marrying again, went into South Carolina and there intermarried, according to the laws of that State, and immediately returned to North Carolina, and continued to live there for several years as husband and wife, until the death of the intestate. And the Supreme Court of North Carolina held this latter marriage to be void. Ruffin, C. J., said: "It is unquestionable, that if this second marriage, in this case, had been celebrated in this State, it would have subjected the plaintiff to the pains of bigamy, and would have been void. The case stands, as to her, precisely as if there never had been a divorce; and, pro hoc vice, the first marriage is still subsisting.