Re: Use of middle names

Cece <ceceliaarmstrong@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Most Americans do not understand the true and English meaning of
"common law": law common to all parts of the country, developed from
the customs of the country (as noted by Glanvill and Bracton) and
then modified by Acts of Parliament (as given by Britton, Coke and
Blackstone), but still common. They think it means law that just
is, without a government having said a word.

The OED appears to share our confusion. They give a first, flagged
obsolete, definition of

The general law of a community, as opposed to local or personal
customs, as of a caste, family, calling, city, or district.

with a derived, archaic, sense of

_common law of the church_: the general law of the Church, as
opposed to provincial constitutions, papal privileges, etc.

and then they give the sense of

The unwritten law of England, administered by the King's courts,
which purports to be derived from ancient and universal usage, and
is embodied in the older commentaries and the reports of adjudged
cases.

with the note

In this sense opposed to _statute law_; also used for the law
administered by the King's ordinary judges as distinguished from
the _equity_ administered by the Chancery and other courts of like
jurisdiction, and from other systems administered by special
courts, as ecclesiastical and admiralty law, and (in the Middle
Ages) the _law merchant_.

In _U.S._: the body of English legal doctrine which is the
foundation of the law administered in all the States settled from
England, and those formed by later settlement or division from
them.

Those are all the senses they give.

"Common law marriage" is widely thought to have originated on the
frontier, where preachers and judges rode circuits, appearing in any
particular community very seldom (perhaps only once a year) and then
for only a few days, perhaps not enough time for word to get to the
outlying farms or ranches. In such cases, a couple might go ahead and
begin to practice their marriage, with their own household, without
waiting months for official blessing. Now, this is almost certainly
not the true explanation

The OED cites "common-law marriage" to 1909, but I see it back to 1855
in Google Books

[Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating]

There was testimony to show that after the death of the former
wife, the petitioner reminded the deceased of his promise to marry
her, and he then renewed it, and finally died without any ceremony
being actually performed. The petitioner and deceased having
lived together as husband and wife from the time of making this
last engagement till Alexander Duncan died, it was claimed by the
petitioner's counsel ... that the evidence in the case showed a
valid marriage of the petitioner and the deceased, at common law,
and that a solemnization of the marriage was not necessary to
render it legal, and that the law of Ohio regulating marriages was
merely directory, and did not render a common law marriage void.

_Cleveland Law Record_, October, 1855

The case is interesting: the man and woman had lived together as
husband and wife for years, having multiple children, but the man
still had a wife back in Ireland, so they had never actually
solemnized the marriage. The wife in Ireland died some six months
prior to the man. The judgment was that the marriage was valid, as
there was nothing in the law of Ohio to override the common law notion
that

1. Toc onstitute a valid marriage at common law, all that is
required is persons competent to contract an agreement to take
effect immediately, which need not be followed by cohabitation, or
an agreement to take effect in future, followed by cohabitation.

2. It is not necessary to the validity of such marriage that it be
solemnized by an officer or clergyman, &c.

It was noted that

In England, by act of Parliament, a marriage by the common law is
declaredvoid, unless solemnized by some officer or clergyman
prescribed by law; but in the United States a different policy
prevails.

The phrase "marriage at common law" seems to show up from around
1839. One commentary refers to "the marriage act of 26 Geo. II" as
having superceded it in England.

The OED cites "common law wife" only to 1934 but again, Google Books
pushes it back to the nineteenth century:

[Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating]

At present we can well imagine an absent-minded bachelor who,
seated next to some enterprising damsel at a hotel table, nods
abstractedly when asked if "his wife will take pie," awakening
some fine morning to find himself involved in a suit brought for
divorce and alimony by his "common law wife."

New York Law School _Counsellor_, 1/1893

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The reason that we don't have
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |park is that there is a significant
|overlap in intelligence between the
kirshenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx |smartest bears and the dumbest
(650)857-7572 |humans.
| Yosemite Park Ranger
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


.

Loading