Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or taken to render any common law or other marriage, otherwise lawful, contracted before December first, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, invalid by reason of the failure to take out a license as herein provided. But no marriage contracted on and after December first, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, shall be valid unless the contracting parties shall have obtained a marriage license as required by section 37:1-2 of this Title, and unless, also, the marriage, after license duly issued therefor, shall have been performed by or before any person, religious society, institution or organization authorized by section 37:1-13 of this Title to solemnize marriages; and failure in any case to comply with both prerequisites aforesaid, which shall always be construed as mandatory and not merely directory, shall render the purported marriage absolutely void.
Amended by L.1939, c. 227, p. 624, s. 1, eff. July 18, 1939.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case:
Bulloch v. United States, 487 F. Supp. 1078 (D.N.J. 1980).
Bulloch v. United States, 487 F. Supp. 1078 (D.N.J. 1980).
“2d 902 , it is also clear that New Jersey requires a license and legally recognized ceremony before a couple can be considered to be married, N.J.S.A. 37:1-10. I do not believe, however, that the New Jersey courts would interpose this policy favoring marriage between a…”
Metro. Life Ins. v. Chase, 189 F. Supp. 326 (D.N.J. 1960).
· cites it 5× “Did a common law marital status arise upon the entry of the divorce decree in New Jersey, and if so, was it lawful in the District or in New Jersey, or in both? It could not arise under the New Jersey law because of the provisions of N.J.S.A. 37:1-10. Having in mind the…”
Hall v. MAAL, 32 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
· cites it 2× “'") (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 37:1-10 ); Dire v. Dire-Blodgett, 140 Idaho 777 , 102 P.”
In re the Est. of Farraj, 72 A.D.3d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010).
“Under the law of the State of New Jersey, the failure to obtain a marriage license renders a purported marriage absolutely void (see NJ Stat Ann § 37:1-10). In New York, while the Domestic Relations Law deems it necessary for all persons intending to be married to obtain a…”
Lennitt v. Commonwealth Dep't of Corr., 964 A.2d 37 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
“N.J. Stat. § 37:1-10. Thus, Lennitt could also establish that he is not married by proving that he and his ex-girlfriend resided in New Jersey during the period when their purported common-law marriage was created.”
United States v. Panetta, 436 F. Supp. 114 (E.D. Pa. 1977).
“Panetta never raised the matter again until he filed his post-trial motions. Since Panetta and Colligon were living in New Jersey at some point, it should be noted that common law marriages have been invalid in that state since 1939.”
State v. Denton, 983 P.2d 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
“” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 37:1-10 (West). Where such a statute exists, even a ceremonial marriage is invalid without a license.”
Crenshaw v. Gardner, 277 F. Supp. 427 (D.N.J. 1967).
“§ 37:1-10, N.J.S.A. Common law marriages entered into before that date continue to be valid.”
Gibbons v. Borough of South Plainfield (N.J. Tax Ct. 2025).
· cites it 6× “Having chosen to continue a common law marriage type of relationship, which the Legislature does not recognize as valid under N.J.SA. 37:1-10, Plaintiff’s claim of disparate treatment for couples in a common law marriage fails.”
John P. Mcgovern Vs. City of Orange (l-1596-14, Essex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017).
· cites it 5× “"married" each other at the commitment ceremony, N.J.S.A. 37:1-10 clearly provides: [N]o marriage contracted on and after December [1, 1939], shall be valid unless the contracting parties shall have obtained a marriage license as required by [N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.