Qg^. IIL of the law to their contract. Now, the jurisprudence of the
Continent of Europe,^ as well as that of England, requires
that matters affecting the former must be decided by the lex
domicilii. The leading authorities on this point in England
are Brook v. Brook^ and Sottomayor v. De Barros.^ In the
former a marriage between persons, both of whom were domi-
ciled in England, which was prohibited by English law, was
declared invalid, although celebrated in a country (Denmark)
by the law of which it was valid. So in the latter, a marriage
contracted in England between first cousins who were natives
of Portugal, and one of whom (the woman) was domiciled in
England and the other (the man) in Portugal, was pronounced
invalid on appeal on the ground that by the law of Portugal,
which country was to be regarded as the place of the matri-
monial domicil, such a marriage was not permitted, except
under Papal dispensation, which had not been obtained, al-
though by the law of England there was no legal objection to
the marriage. On the other hand, the law of the United States
holds that a marriage valid according to the kx loci celebrationis
is valid everywhere.* The English Courts, however, wiU only
apply this law with respect to the external formalities of
marriage. Thus, in Crompton v. Bearcroft^ a Gretna Ghreen
marriage between persons domiciled in England was recog-
nized, because only certain formalities prescribed by the Eng-
lish law, and not the essentials of marriage, had been evaded.
