Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. E., 1, 4.
' Erskin's Inst, b. 3, tit. 2, s. 39 ; Vidal v. Thompson, 11 Mar- the law of the place of the bargain, and that of the place of performance is in conflict, it seems that the latter will govern.^ Contracts of marriage have their own particular distinctions and exceptions, which it will not be necessary fi>r us to inquire into here j it being suffi- cient for our purpose to state the general rule, that a marriage contracted according to the Zeas foci will be binding all the world over, unless it is contrary to the principles of Christianity. So polygamy, or incestuous marriages, would not be recognized by any Christian country.' And a learned judge has said on this point, that, " If a foreign State allows of marriages incestuous by the law of nature, as between parent and child, it would not be allowed to have any validity here. But marriages not natu- rally unlawful, but prohibited by the law of one State, and not of another, if celelsrated where they are not pi"ohibited, would be holden valid in a State where they are not allowed. As in this State (Mas- sachusetts), a marriage between a man and his de- ceased wife's sister is lawful; but it is not so in some States. Such a marriage celebrated here* would be held valid in any other State, and the tin R., 28; Liv. Jjtss., p> 46 j £it)'g9 Oom., pi 1, 29 j C%y 7. Leoj/, 8 Camp., 166.