Summary

Portrait of Roger B. Taney Roger B. Taney Lessee of Jewell v. Jewell — Opinion of the Court

That a promise to marry at a future time, followed by cohabitation, does not constitute marriage, though the promise be accepted at the time when it was made.
And the defendants prayed the justices to instruct the jury:
1. That if they believe that before any sexual connexion between Miss Prevost and Benjamin Jewell, Mr. Jewell and Miss Prevost, in the presence of her family and his friends, agreed to marry, and did afterwards live together as man and wife, the tie was indissoluble even by mutual consent.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Roger B. Taney Roger B. Taney Lessee of Jewell v. Jewell — Opinion of the Court

That if the said Benjamin and Sophie were living in concubinage in 1796, under the agreement produced in evidence, and continued to cohabit together afterwards, such cohabitation will not amount to marriage, notwithstanding their representations to third persons, unless there was a distinct agreement between them to rescind the former agreement, and to stand to each other thenceforward in the relation of husband and wife.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature