Definition
Latin: "by words of the future [tense]." A phrase describing a form of marriage contract in which the parties promise to marry each other at a future time — an engagement or betrothal — rather than an immediate exchange of matrimonial consent. Under the common law doctrine of marriage contracts, a per verba de futuro agreement was a promise to wed, not a wedding itself.
The phrase is nearly always encountered in contrast to its companion term, per verba de præsenti ("by words of the present tense"), which described an immediate exchange of consent constituting a valid common law marriage. The distinction between the two carried significant legal consequences: a per verba de præsenti contract created a marriage at once, while a per verba de futuro contract, standing alone, created only an enforceable betrothal. However, if a per verba de futuro promise was followed by sexual intercourse, the common law treated it as elevated to the force of a per verba de præsenti contract — that is, as a completed marriage.
---
Common Confusion
Per verba de futuro is routinely conflated with per verba de præsenti. The confusion is understandable because both terms describe informal marriage contracts recognized under common law, and historical sources often discuss them in tandem without clearly marking the operational difference. The critical distinction is temporal: de futuro is a promise to marry; de præsenti is a declaration of present marriage. A researcher encountering either term in a historical document must determine which form the parties actually used before drawing any conclusion about whether a valid marriage existed.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost entirely a historical legal concept. Researchers will encounter it primarily in pre-20th-century sources — ecclesiastical court records, equity proceedings, chancery cases, and treatises on domestic relations law — rather than in modern statutory or case law. Several navigational points matter:
**Ecclesiastical versus civil court jurisdiction.** In England, marriage contract disputes were long handled by ecclesiastical courts, and the per verba de futuro / de præsenti distinction was a product of canon law absorbed into English common law. Researchers working in records predating the Marriage Act 1753 (Lord Hardwicke's Act) will find this doctrine operating at full strength. After that act imposed formal requirements on English marriages, the significance of the verbal distinction diminished considerably in English law, though it persisted longer in American jurisdictions that retained common law marriage doctrines.
**American persistence.** American courts, particularly through the 19th century, continued to apply this doctrine in states that recognized common law marriage. Treatise discussions in Kent's Commentaries and subsequent domestic relations texts carry the doctrine forward. A researcher reading 19th-century American cases on the validity of informal marriages must be alert to whether the court is applying the de futuro / de præsenti framework.
**Seduction and breach of promise actions.** The per verba de futuro promise was the doctrinal foundation for the old action for breach of promise to marry. Because a de futuro contract was an enforceable obligation, failure to perform it could give rise to a civil action for damages. Research into 19th-century breach-of-promise litigation will intersect with this term.
**Interaction with subsequent intercourse.** The rule that a per verba de futuro promise followed by intercourse ripened into a marriage is a significant and easily missed doctrinal wrinkle. A source may describe parties as having entered a de futuro agreement while the legal conclusion ultimately turns on whether consummation occurred.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries treat per verba de futuro identically: a short Latin phrase defined by reference to the future tense and marriage contracts, with citation to Blackstone's Commentaries (Book 1, Chapter 15, on the rights of husband and wife) and Kent's Commentaries. Burrill adds the "L. Lat." (Law Latin) designation, which is accurate — the phrase is a term of legal art, not classical Latin prose.
The brevity of all three entries is itself informative. By the time these dictionaries were compiled, the doctrine had become largely historical even for their editors. None of the three entries elaborates on the per verba de futuro / de præsenti distinction or explains the intercourse-ripening rule. Researchers relying solely on dictionary definitions will miss those consequences entirely. Blackstone himself at 1 Bl. Comm. 439 is the better primary source for understanding how the doctrine actually operated; Kent at 2 Kent's Comm. 87 provides the American reception.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The doctrine was part of English common law and was received into American law in states that recognized common law marriage. Its practical relevance today is confined to historical research and to a small number of jurisdictions that still recognize common law marriage, though no modern court applies the per verba de futuro framework in its classical form. Canon law origins mean the term also appears in ecclesiastical legal sources distinct from civil common law reports.
---