Note 659 — Chapter XVIII · PROBLEMS OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
Reading edition
Except, perhaps, in practically getting rid of the subtle doctrine of marriage per verba de futuro cum copula: see the decision in Starr v. Peck (1841), 1 Hill, N. Y., 270; Ewell, Cases, 403. Cf. Cheney v. Arnold (1857), 15 N. Y., 345; Ewell, 407-13; this being followed in Duncan v. Duncan, 10 Ohio, 181; but discarded in Port v. Port, 70 Ill., 484; and Peck v. Peck, 12 R. I., 484; 34 Am. R., 702. Cf. Bishop, Mar., Div., and Sep., I, secs. 353-77, pp. 147-62; Kent, Commentaries, II, sec. 87 ff., pp. 119 ff.