The New York herald., 1870-02-09
United STATES SUPREME COURT.
An Indiana Divorce Suit-Whnt Constitutes q
Bona Eide Residence.


Bona Eide Residence.
WASHINGTON, Feb 8, 1870.
No. SO. Benjamin. H. Ctee0er uS. Jessie q. Wilson
ana A,lie j. Vorcestey-Appeal rom the Supreme
court or the District or CO,uDlbta.-The appel q t
ied bill In the Circuit Court for the District OF Co
iumbia IN june 1853. for the purpose OF enforcing
decree or tho Circuit Court OF Madison county,
Indiana, granting divorce, vinculo, between hun
and Annie J. Cheever, now Worcester. The decree
OF divorce also aajudged that portion OF the rents
Of certain real estate IN the city Of Washington
should be paid to the appellant for the support oftwo
OF the children Of the marriage assigned to his
Shortly after the decree was rendered Mrs. Cheever
married one Worcester now deceased. The defendant
Wison Is IN possession OF the real estate, tenant
trustee. Yne court below dismissed the bill Judge
Wyhe cchverlng the opinion OF the court nolding
that the decree OF the Indiana court was "wholy
VOID as 70 cacn OF the subjects OF which H claims to
oispose-tbe divorce, the cnndren aud the pro-
perty"-and the only question presented by the ap-
peal Ii whether hat decree O the Indiana court
VOID or Is valid. Inc Facts were that the parties,
dsasrecln2, separated, Cheever taking two OF tns
cnliiren and Mrs. Cneever two. Some years alter
Mrs. Cneeyer removed to Marion county, Indiana,
anu IN 1887 petltOned for divorce, alleging abau-
doninenL ana acrs OF cruelty. Afterwards an order
was made changing the venue TO Madison county,
Chcevor appeared aad defended, denying all ale
cations OF tho NH and hng cross bill or petition
" which ne made his vile defendant and In which
ne stated that about ten years after their mar
rage disagreement arose between them, winch
oi the disposition OF his wife he was compelled 10
abandon hcr which he did, without Intent 10 return
70 her tnat it was Impossible reconciliation could
ever take place Tor he could never live with her
a.ain wAuout destroying tue happiness or his lie.
MIS- cneever answered, denying all matters ncon-
sistent WITH the allegations OF her petition. Tne
lhuidna cUurG hearu the evidence, and finding the
matra-e and abandonment TO be true, and the
Other allegations untrue, granted the divorce and
made The decree to the property Upon th.s state
OF facts the appellant insists upon the validity Of the
decree, Claiming tnat as petMeea the parties, the
a.. q
uonal provision that lul 1aith credit shall be
given IA eaca state 70 the public asts records and
decree Is autheniicatcd. II tue Judgment Is con
elusive III the stare where was PRONOUNCED
contend Chat tnc decree void for want or uris-
dic.ion; that inc piantn In the suit old show
0ona Hde fesilcnce IN Indiana, and that 1t Is clear
from tAe proof that she went TO that State for the
Sole purpose oil procuring divorce, end with no
.ntenton 10 reside there longer than was necessary
Tor inst object. Sne went III February, the decree
was Obtained IN August and she remained only iii
September. She WAS never tlere, rs far as ap-
pears, before or aiter that period. The essential
requisites OF bona fde residence were wanting
Bes des, during coyerturs she could not acquire
q doiuc.ie lii lnAiana. Her domiclle must he
where her husband ts ana she caanot acquire
different one during coyerture. The cnly e1cep-
uons are that where husband abandons MS wife
aud cS,aulisneS'a different dOmice. the re-
tam The doncL wGere sno was abandoned and geek
her remedies there, or she may go back to her
thefe. lat If there was jurisdiction OF the person
there was none to anect The wfies property, even
winch provide that wncrc divorce IS decrced Tor
the act OF the husband The wine shall be to
her property as IL ne had died. G. w. Boyce Tor ap-
peilant; W. L. Cox for appeiiees.
Steamboat Contract Litigation.
Nos. 5o and 81. Steamboat N. B,trnes Morrison
q ncE,l1,tS, Glad Same u.s. Reynolds G Atkef.-E,7ov
TO Ule Supreme Court or Missourf.-Ttese are two
Of eleven suits brought by the defendants here to
recover Tor suppcs furnished for the use OF num-
Der Of boats belonging TO the ST. Louis Cairo and
Jonnsonviie Packet Company and running IN the
Trade between st. Louis ana Jonnsonviiis in Ten
nessee. The boats had been tue property OF mer-
cantile nrin residing ana doing business St. LOUIS
ana were placed ny tAem az STOCK LII the packet
Company, a torporatlon chartered by the Legsla-
tuIe OF tennessee. 1ney, however remained en-
rolled tLe Custom House 1t ST. LOUIS where most
o. the STOCKHOLDERS OF the company resided.
The uerendaiIs in error resided ana did buslness
LII LhaL CITY, and Inc accounts accrued there. The
purchases were made through an agent employed
by Lhe Dackes company VINO had himself no connec-
tion WlLn Lie boats either master or mariner. lS
whole TIME was spent In Sc. LOUIS and whenever ne
purchased supplies ne designated tue boats TO which
the; should be sent. lie also directed the defeu-
aants La error to Keep separate account With each
boat
lne complaint was flied in the Circuit Court
OF ST Louis unaer tue Boat act OF The state giving
. lien for supplies, and eaca OF the boats was at
tached. Ine JudaiienLs were Tor the defendants in
error, sustaining Lheir nel and the Supreme Courg
OF the slate affirmed tnem In the course OF tine
proceedings The claimants Of the boats hed
amended answer denying the jurisdiction OF the
Sate court, On the ground that the contract was
within tic exclusive jurisdiction Of the federal dis
trlct court, Oelrg 4 OF maritime lien, OF which
that court had exclusive original jurisdiction. ON
the question raised Dy THIS pleading the
here ior review, anu tue question tor determination
s, does the furnishing of supplies TO vessel her
home port create q marlLimc hen and bring the
case wIsnn the exclusive cognlzance OF the
federal courts having Admiralty jurisdiction
The plaintiffs In contend that the Boat act OF
Missouri under which the proceedings were lnsti-
tuted Is VOID, as Dcins repugnant to the irovsioas
OF tile CONSTITUTION resyect OF maritime jurISdc-
tion, and they rely upon the decisions In the
Of the Ad Hne ann the Moses TAYLOR to sus-
tain their view. The defendants couceae that un-
der the principle finally settled IN OF the
lime all nariime laws are within the exclusive
jurisdiction OF the federal courts of adnira ~ but
they contend that IL not the Intention oi that
decision TO enlarge the admiralty jurisdiction or the
federal courts and that the contracs these
involve maritime lien. 1t IL also insisted that
the State courts nave still jurisdiction,
o. maritime contract where no maritime lien exists
John II. Rankin for plaintiffs In crror G. y. strong
Tor defendants.
another Steamboat suit.
Nos. 81 ana 62. The Steamboat Joseph Johnson
us McCord and the Washington Insurance Conepdny
ana McCord and the Washington Insurance COM
fany Us. the Propeller WtItl0n r. Burden et al
Appeals from the Circuit court for tie Southern
District or Nelo Iork.-This suit was brought by
McCord as the owner OF the canal boat Kate McCord
ana the Insurance company, as owner or ner cargo
OF wheat, TO recover damages against the steamboat
and propeller resulting from collision on the East
river In December, 1868, while the canal boat was In
tow Of the propeller. The decision OF the District
Court was that the steamboat ana propeller
Jointly liable Tor the damage, aud the decree was
against them botn. But the Circuit Court held tnaL
the steamboat was solely at iault ana reversed SO
much OF tie decree as charged the propeller with
responsibility with costs against the DeianLS. The
owners OF the steamboat appeal, maintaining that
the propeller was altogether To be charged, WAS
at least equally III fault, and should contribute
towards the damages; and the libcants appeal from
DO much OF the decree as dsiniseS tile libel 10 the
propeller with costs against them. The questions
are principally or TACT c. Van Stanwood for libel
ans; H. }. Fithian for the steamboat: Erie benedict
for the propeller.
The nlorse Telegraph Litigation.
No. 66. Francis o. J. Smith us. Samuel r. y.
HORSE Ct dL--EyTor TO the circuit Court for TIE
southern District Of NeU York--Thts was an action
Of covenant against the pantr in error, founded on
q submission tc an award OF arbitration In iilga-
tion existing between Morse and the executors OF
VAN against Smith arising out or certain agreements
concerning Morscs telegraph. The SUBMISSION
shows that oil suits and causes OF action between
parties, and also all causes OF action between the
late Mr. Kendall and Smith, had been amicabiy ad-
justed and settled. with certain exceptions Vi Claims
as iollows:-A claim for STOCK ana dividend III tue
II achl lntyfnn and Aavy fhVia TQl