Commonwealth v. Spooner

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Spooner

18 Mass. 234

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Mass. 234 (Commonwealth v. Spooner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Spooner, 18 Mass. 234 (Mass. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The marriage of the defendant is valid. This case comes within one decided a few years since in the county of Suffolk. There, a Methodist minister, having been previously ordained, was settled at Boston for two years, whicn was stated to be the usual length of time with that denomination of Christians for settling a minister ; and, upon an' application for a divorce, a, marriage by him was held to be good.¹

¹

But a minister ordained over an unincorporated religious soc'cty, com posed of members belonging to different towns, is not a “ stated and ordained minister of the gospel,” within the meaning of the statute. Ligonia v. Buxton, 2 Greenl. 102. A person who has been once set apart as a public teacher of religion, according to the forms of the sect to which he belongs, is an “ ordained minister,” and, whether over any society or not, is qualified to solemnize marriages in the county where he has his “ permanent residence,” under the provisions of the statute of February 1791. (1 N. Hamp. Laws, 350.) Londonderry v. Chester, 2 N. Hamp. R. 268. A person ordained deacon, according to the forms of the Methodist Episcopal church, and commissioned by a bishop of that church to preach, administer the. ordinance of marriage, Sea., is an “ ordained minister,” within the meaning of the marriage act of 1820. Kibbe v. Antram, 4 Conn. R. 134. See also Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. R. 210; Gridley v. Clark, 2 Pick. 403; Ruggles v. Kimball, 12 Mass. R. 337; Baldwin v McClinch, 1 Greenl. 102.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The marriage of the defendant is valid. This case comes within one decided a few years since in the county of Suffolk. There, a Methodist minister, having been previously ordained, was settled at Boston for two years, whicn was stated to be the usual length of time with that denomination of Christians for settling a minister ; and, upon an' application for a divorce, a, marriage by him was held to be good.¹

¹

But a minister ordained over an unincorporated religious soc'cty, com posed of members belonging to different towns, is not a “ stated and ordained minister of the gospel,” within the meaning of the statute. Ligonia v. Buxton, 2 Greenl. 102. A person who has been once set apart as a public teacher of religion, according to the forms of the sect to which he belongs, is an “ ordained minister,” and, whether over any society or not, is qualified to solemnize marriages in the county where he has his “ permanent residence,” under the provisions of the statute of February 1791. (1 N. Hamp. Laws, 350.) Londonderry v. Chester, 2 N. Hamp. R. 268. A person ordained deacon, according to the forms of the Methodist Episcopal church, and commissioned by a bishop of that church to preach, administer the. ordinance of marriage, Sea., is an “ ordained minister,” within the meaning of the marriage act of 1820. Kibbe v. Antram, 4 Conn. R. 134. See also Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. R. 210; Gridley v. Clark, 2 Pick. 403; Ruggles v. Kimball, 12 Mass. R. 337; Baldwin v McClinch, 1 Greenl. 102.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Mass. 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-spooner-mass-1822.