Definition
Per verba de praesenti (Latin: "by words of the present tense") is a common law doctrine under which a marriage is constituted by an exchange of words expressing present consent to be married — that is, words declaring that the parties are married now, rather than words promising to marry in the future. The distinction is between saying "I take you as my wife" (present tense, operative immediately) and "I will take you as my wife" (future tense, a promise).
Under the older common law of England and early American jurisdictions, an exchange of words de praesenti, made freely and between parties capable of contracting, was itself sufficient to constitute a valid and binding marriage — without ceremony, witnesses, clergy, or registration. The marriage arose from the consent itself, expressed in the present tense, regardless of how it was formalized or publicized.
---
Common Confusion
Per verba de praesenti is easily confused with its counterpart, per verba de futuro — "by words of the future tense." The two doctrines operate differently and produce different legal consequences. Words de praesenti ("I take you") constituted marriage immediately and irrevocably. Words de futuro ("I will take you") constituted only a betrothal or contract to marry. However, at common law, a contract per verba de futuro followed by sexual intercourse was treated as equivalent to a marriage per verba de praesenti, elevating the future promise into a present marriage. Researchers who encounter both phrases in historical records, ecclesiastical proceedings, or early American case law should take care not to conflate them, as the legal outcome — marriage versus mere betrothal — depended entirely on which form of words was used.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is primarily a historical research problem. It appears almost exclusively in older materials: English ecclesiastical court records, early American domestic relations cases, treatises on the law of marriage, and decisions from jurisdictions that recognized informal or common law marriage. Researchers will rarely encounter it in modern statutory or case law, but it is essential for understanding the foundations of common law marriage doctrine.
Several navigational points matter here:
First, the per verba de praesenti doctrine was the conceptual engine behind common law marriage as it developed in American jurisdictions. States that recognized common law marriage were, in effect, carrying forward the principle that present consent — not ceremony — creates the marital status. Understanding the Latin phrase helps researchers trace how modern common law marriage doctrine connects to its ecclesiastical and canonical roots.
Second, the phrase appears in Blackstone's Commentaries (1 Bl. Comm. 439), which is the citation Black's Law Dictionary provides and which remains the most accessible primary exposition of the doctrine for common law researchers. Blackstone's discussion draws on canon law inherited through the English ecclesiastical courts, making this a term that bridges civil and ecclesiastical legal traditions.
Third, the spelling variant in the source — "PRZAESENTI" — reflects a historical typesetting or transcription artifact. The correct Latin is praesenti. Researchers searching digitized historical sources should account for both spellings and their variants; early printed law books frequently introduced such errors, and optical character recognition in digitized corpora compounds the problem.
Fourth, the distinction between de praesenti and de futuro words had significant practical consequences in inheritance, legitimacy, and dower disputes. In historical records, whether a deceased person was married — and thus whether a surviving partner held spousal rights — could turn on whether the recorded exchange of words was in the present or future tense.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides a spare, accurate definition: "By words of the present [tense]. A phrase applied to contracts of marriage," with a citation to 1 Blackstone's Commentaries 439. The entry is too compressed to be independently useful but is reliable as a pointer to Blackstone, who remains the authoritative common law source on the doctrine.
Blackstone's treatment situates the per verba de praesenti rule within canon law received into English law through the ecclesiastical courts. Under that framework, the consensual theory of marriage — derived from the medieval canonists — held that consent alone made marriage, and words of the present tense were the legal vehicle for expressing that consent. The rule required no solemnization to be binding in conscience or in law, though post-Reformation English statutes increasingly imposed formal requirements that displaced the older canonical rule in England proper. American jurisdictions, freed from those statutory overlays at the founding, retained the older consensual doctrine longer, which is why per verba de praesenti remains relevant to American legal history even after it faded in English law.
Historical dictionaries generally agree on the definition and its connection to marriage law. None provide substantive analytical discussion beyond the definitional level. Researchers requiring depth should turn to Blackstone directly, and to Kent's Commentaries for American application of the doctrine.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The doctrine has no operative legal significance in jurisdictions that require statutory formalities for a valid marriage. In American states that recognize common law marriage, the underlying principle — that mutual present consent constitutes marriage — continues the per verba de praesenti tradition, though modern courts rarely invoke the Latin phrase itself. Historical application varied among American states and territories, and the doctrine's reach was substantially affected by individual state statutes regulating marriage solemnization as early as the nineteenth century.
---