The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-08-17
The D'ArusnaOnt Fanny Wright) Law Case
at Clmclnnatl.
DECISION IN FAVOR OF MADAME D'ARUsMONr.
From the Cincinnati Gszette, August AL


At Cincinnati.
DECISION IN FAVOR OF MADAME D'ARUsMoNr.
From the Cincinnati Gsxette August AL
Frances Wright D'.husKont William fhignipd
D'.7aaort In this very interesting proceeding Judge
Warren delivered the opinion Of the Court eterdsy,
This is q singular ease The record viii embody
the Of t-o lives the portrsiiure Of Al least two
marked and Interesting characters and the story OF
mary important events The bill he answers the cor
Repentance, a volume Of moral Lessons the argu-
me mt would make hook-a vsluabls book-of equity
jurisprudence. shall forget those mornings In
the law library those arguments thoee studies, those
eloquent appeals to enlightened IL ought and exalted
fr.og All the questions tsla up TO view In every
possible light never indeed such questions more
clearly eucdated And IT, in the this opinion
many of the points in that almost perfect argument OF
counsel on both sides are really untouched appa-
rently unnotced it viii certainly not DO because any
ore Of them has failed to engage my attenton have
carefully considered all the arguments OF counsel and
earnestly endeavoed to do justice between those parties
And now, after advisemeut, which has occupied every
moment q me time LEFT me by the pressure II public
duties and the painful Interruptions of domestic ac
items venture to pronounce the opinion have formed
The relief asked by complainant il, think the
ture Of almony At least the structure Of the bl is
SUCH that whatever relief be the peadsr
evidently contemplate that relief consequences OF
inc divorce which the petitioner declared her iotenton
to seek in the proper court pending the proceedings
this Regarding the bill for aumony the counsel
for has ably and ugeaiouy argued that this
couit Is without jurisdiction to allow such relief To a
resident Of Tennessee We do not understand the
law There are good reasons why it should not be so
construed First because such strict aud restrictive
construction would confer this ourt Q crippled
juisdicticn, and ought only to be adopted upon
conviction that the Language will not bar con-
structiop favorable TO tia complete admins
| traton Of justice, aud harmonious with tina
objects If the legislation to which it belones.
We are inclined 10 the opinion that alimony In ONO eau
only allowed for the pointed out in the stature
but the strict consi ruction adopted by
counsel shall not have reason to restrict the remedy
caimed The language so construed occurs In the
seventh section Of the Divorce Act What is by
Is & Il we aG a ~ he se.ona nF'' r
provides Cor applications for divorce Now, how can
in wht the vie asks for ainony alone be case
aforesaid lin which divorce Is ASKED Nor II the APP
pcaon Of the phrase appropriate to the sixth
ton which provides for residence as to anony Ia fact
every other section = ts statute sSccgt the hrst re-
ings of courts upon them although that first section
defines the OF divorce, it is the only which
furnish the cases aforrsad" in which it can be
said that the petitioner prays for ali nopy alone And if
We go to the next section which provides that the wife
fhn file her petition under tho provisions of this
pray ing for divorce from her husband the residence Of
her huf band shall be construed to preclude her
dtops suggestions fox doubns the correct of the
restrictive construction. It claimed that the
rule that the residence CT the wife follows that Of hus
band applies to OF divorce and yet that the desti
tute wife OF follow her husband into the where
alone b. wants be supplied think the operation of
the cases aforesaid is TO furnish the courts with
the causes for which alimopy may be allowed Aud
the more inclined 20 such opinion regarding the
Illustration Of the difficulty attending the opposite doe
trne yielded by tho very before The complain
ant declares that she will pending these proceedings
seek divorce in Tennessee, and will, thereupon, ask
under the French code that is she asks alimony aud
the rule Tor granting that she applies to the French
eode Treating the case as one for amoay 1t is clear
that she only have full relief in this and it
would be strange she must first have her decree for
amory in Tennessee and then into court oflaw
ehancey in Ohio for the purpose Of enforcing thai decree
But Is next objected that the complainant cannot have
anopy. because she Is longer married woman This
is lot law In Ohio notwithstanding the former opinion
Of Of complainant counsel strictly IL is Law
wherefor the sentence OF divorce always precedes
that Of almony, when both are sought by the same
Ia Egv 49,
riainant fled her bill, she married woman, aud
that she s rely asking clear legal consequence
Of divorce obtained pending these very proceedings,
ana with strict reference to them The next objection
is that if the Jun isdcton Is established the complainant
has no merits lie. us xamne this part Of the As
have already said minated. IL the comp linant has
made oct none Of the specified the first section
Of the divorce act she have relief in the
OF aimoB rsipg that term according to the common
definition and excluding for the present all idea of ali
mony Tsn1ie lie But clearly Of opinion that she
Sufficiently aud satisfactorily proved least of
these causes The words . gross neglect OF dutyn arc
not employed but such Is The substance of the aoga
ton and uch IL the effect Of the decree divorcing the
parties pronounced BY the tennessee court True,
here with the difficulty that French not
allow divorces. Bet the complainant does her
rights UDecr TIE FRENCH lsw because chs ha bsen di-
vretd All that can be saa L that the divorce Is not
divorce title to such restoration property
elaine by her. In her bill she states Tor divorce
subst antisy and she there intmstes that when she
shall have Guirod the right to sue Tennessee court
fer such relief she will there ak for divorce Having
bten divorced pending this proceeding she de-
nee amouy ard claims such almony the enforce
msnt q her rights under the french code. Now her
claims under the French code, depend upon the ques
tion whether there has been such a for the
divorce in Tennessee would under the French code,
have supported divorce for cause determinste. SO
that, although she may be entitled to slimony. she
may stil not be entitled to such smory would de-
feat the operation Of the French law II shall fad that
the law Of tie place Of the marriage contrast governs
in this Let exsnine. then. whether tn. Law
Il Ohio or the Law CT Trance Il furnish with the
rule for sscertairng these parties rights In the
dtt in which am now placed. cann5t fully state
TIE the opinion have sub
jet In other circumstances would be disposed to do
without reviewing the ho.iros in this place and con
fssiny that attentive consideration cf the cited
not entirely relieved my mind Of doubt. venture
state the propositions There is distinction between
the construction Of ordinary contracts and that Of the
marriage contract far pro3riety il concerned In
either however the intention II the parties ought
to govern In any suit between the parties alone
tween them and such have not Tbs protection given
tn inuoc nj purchasers creditors the like Where
the pArte gree that notwithstanding any change Of
rs!ocnce, tho property acquisitions shall b. governed by
the laws q The State where they marty that agreement
ought & BE- pccttd In the settlement % all questions
between the parties and Ia all courts unless the rights
- innocent creditors or purcbnsors would thereby BE-
All oird ubcr such would contrarcno the laws po-
Icy II the state in which Fush relief sought. Tue
parties may arrce mt only by written articles but By
mercy verbal implied contract In the ebcrcc Of such
written article. verbal agrscgrnt or implied contract,
tie mere fact of marrying in ono country f1rniahes
prsuIogon thnt he PARTIES sgrec u govern all their
rrnIety acquisitions ~ the Law u that place irrrpoc
tive Of III change % douiclo Upon the qu-stiou uf
hct wL,,hG thtre was any such egrrcmsnt it Is al
mitted that there written articles of such a
contract. and rrdcr the rules e law which lcr-
stsrd 20 govern sle fatons aud denial ch lncery
cause. have no rTCcf which nov D. consld rod
that the parties hrd "a agreement the uhcct II
is rogaibe however that the complainant nav prove
vhtt she claims thts subject, AMI the on. eject
~ it, being for the rfrsnt improved % leave fr Ia
ure determination the question vhfthcr suppo ng the
Plaintiff CIttlsd 10 aiimony. thc If'nch cole or The
etmmon las T. 20 lc regarded in determinny lhc rea-
tons q The parcs 70 their property Ia this STATE
81 certainty nd IL Necessary e. esr-css any opini
msy have f1Trsrd as 20 the rCttiFmrn. n property
qUtsons Lndor he foreign as. In cssss Ike this
equally relieved Ia the cue ton whc;Agr tn n9lain.
art baf ntrts requiring Tie allowance q a,imony
conseguerct % her divorce The dcrce tfthr rcDnes
cont ID uch fstts prove the exiencc Of
O. tie Ter almouy known 70 our Law viz gross
n'7lcct q duty Happy esteem nyscif Ia being thus
discharged q the rs@t delicate sud eifisult ta tAt
could y" irrcrcd uron any court. W. have a. have
sad teen called mon in this stfau- 20 review the
history of two lvos aud the orruirr Of another Two
lives tibet are orsing iu suffering aud snrruEanother
the happiness ~ TIC others the sDctudc of
10th We have ben lccnn. yp5B fearful picture;
ao hr' athc 's-iy trce more vhGn become certain
that u Il not ny painful duty copy such purtraurc
lei II