The issue of the legitimating effect of an invalid marriage previously has been before our trial courts where opposite conclusions were reached. The Burlington County Court in In reWeeast, 72 N.J. Super. 325 (1962) construed the word "marry" in N.J.S. 3A:4-7 to mean a valid marriage and held that a child born of a meretricious relationship was not legitimated by the subsequent bigamous ceremonial marriage of her parents. Taking a contrary view, the Chancery Division in L. v. L., 92 N.J. Super. 118 (1966) broadly construed "marry" to include a ceremonial but bigamous marriage and concluded that children born prior to such marriage of their parents were to be deemed legitimate under the statute. We hold that the word "marry" as used in N.J.S. 3A:4-7 embraces all ceremonial marriages, whether valid or not. That this construction accords with the legislative intent is demonstrated by the revision of the statute in L. 1951, ch. 345.
It also should be pointed out that if the subsequent marriage of the parents referred to in the preceding section is a void ceremonial marriage, the children are nonetheless legitimate. See L. v. L., 92 N.J.Super. 118, 222 A.2d 297 (Super.Ct.1966). N.J.S.§ 9:15-1, N.J.S.A., is a general legitimation statute which provides for the legitimation 'by the intermarriage of * * * natural parents,' along with the requirement of recognition.
[ 51 N.J. at 349-350 (1968)] In Calogero the court expressly approved the opinion of Judge Matthews in L. v. L., 92 N.J. Super. 118 (Ch.Div. 1966), which held that children deemed legitimated by a subsequent void, bigamous ceremonial marriage would take under the laws of descent and distribution. In both of those cases the court was concerned with a ceremonial marriage, whereas here our attention is drawn to a possible common law marriage in the State of Pennsylvania.