New-York daily tribune., 1859-01-24
LAW LNTELLTGE ENCR.
SUPREME COURT-sPEcIsL TERN-Jas. -
DIVORCE LAWS OF OTHER STATES.
HcGiff-ft sat hcGifrrr

Tho complaint IN this cause Is fled by the wfs
s,srs defendant her hGsbAnd, OI divorce riae1o
The parties being re.c of ri State med here
l2ih Of September 1880 They lived together but few
January 1851 defendant led hi. complaint ,s,n,; the
Of pbvscs incspsciy OF tar plaintiff 20 eousumnse
tie marrisge. This she d-Iied, IN her suswer.
On 2gh of April is5 order made in th.t
requ>g plaintiff pay Ccur, fees aud smony
the defendant In that and the not having been paid
stsyi1g all proceedr part Of the plaintiff therein until
paid tue procedr therein have been ssyei aud 'us
January 1852 the defendant the State Of Indiana
leaving the plaintiff ns wife in this state where 'he ha. ever
reDaued The defer daut stated in bis ansSer that such
residence IN Indiana commenced on or about the 81 day jan
hoT Se res et Of that s;ate ana been for Jre
preceding said date resident q saii state he
the 2h Of NAV 1855 the plana in this suit not appearing
Of divorce grsued In Otober 1855 the d-endsn
whom been married In Indiana by the divorce granted
there whom he has here Upon hese facts the
the depdsr Fh ths whom he claimed to be
red Is adot'roU.. sud entities her 20 divorce
s. c. Lyme and r. Iilou for pahtf b. f. Cowis for de-
fendsrt.
tio1s presented in this 1t spears 70 that mus be
disposed on authority OF Vi.chee yisches L. Back
8 and The sho e. referred TO- The Court nosps
never had jurisdiction the plaintiff til. the pro-
ceednss theIe TO void As remarked by Ja.lie
well nstura j1sce thst should be bound
"by Judgment without being beafd And he cited large
the case Of v,chee a,t v.cbes shove cited the
pr eipe divorces applied in the OF
Fcb IS John. 81 In this the husosDf being
the Vermont applied there hs vile then being IN
and hsyg been In Vermont and hayiog 40
of the proc@sdr g for divorce which was granted Tie
into married another his hr.t wife
being m living and the turned up the effect Of the d
vorce granted IN the State Of Nern' ut
THOMPSON C. j. in delivering the opinion OF the Court
appeared from the esiimony the former wife
Ia the State Of Vermont IN manner per
soDGy notified apPd the time of 'he proceedings in
by attorney appear msks defense ag,in
,uoh prce.diDgs precisely similar Of fsos pre-
scented consideration. The Cnf ls,ice
ssys: Toe final question h whether such proceedings 10
absolutely void To saoction aud give
divorce be-
the p,scipes justice To budng effect
essential that the Court should taye jurisdc
tu Of the subject natter and the want OF
Jurisdiction matter tbs always be set up against
when sopsht be enforced when oeneht
claimed the Of judctOn makes utterly void
and unavailable for any purpose" ,
These positions well sutsined ~ authority aud sound
have been unable 20 hnd where TIE
force of this has questoueo We have already that It
was law In toe Of Nhes Nchee above
referred and feel no hesitation in saying that am not az
liberty quesp tie binding force OF these althottes They
derioe the precise point presented IN h, hodrg decree
obtained this BE- void aud unavins Tor any
purpose whatever therefore follows that foras 90 i-sa
in,ca'ion for defendant in oohabog vita any o1-
wosu peut bic swfa wife, and zoe f.ct' OF 'uca
and the other facts necessary 70 ente the pnn
20 cyorce rineuo being clearly established have choice
but direct decree for ovocr. referee may De had 10
settle the proper shmony to be paid to the plaintf