Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-02-06
she E3AE of the Case.

Inc fffent decision OF the we'll
Sharon case by the Supreme
known - a's,e has led to some
CouIt of ,his W. LOT those who
confusion in the min,.- 20 out Of
knew that an action growi-a LAD
tue same questions had been H. :.
and decided in the Ci, cut Court OF
he United States. A contemporary
aids this confusion by assert ng edi-
orally that there is now chance for
an endless fight based upon the ques-
ton of jurisdiction between the State
and national courts. 1t will, however,
AXE only simple statement OF the
two cases to show that there is no
conflict of jurisdiction, and that the
decision of the Supreme Court of Cali
fornia, affirming the decision OF the
superior Court, is conclusive upon
the question of the marriage and dl-
vorce, and that it cannot g affected
ov the decision OF the. Circuit Court
| upon matter collateral to the main
issue.
The case of Sharon vs. Sharon in
the Superior Court was an action
brought to dissolve the bonds OF mat
rimony alleged to exist between the
plaintiff and the defendant 1t differed
from the Gust omary suit for divorce
only in this, that the defendant denied
the existence of the marital relation,
thereby putting the plaintiff to her
proofs that marriage existed. This
she proved to the satisfaction OF the
Supreme Court, the Judge OF which
decided-first, that the parties were
wife and husband; and, second, that
the plaintiff was entitled to decree
of divorce. Those were the only issues
| IA that sase, everything else being in
! e!3entai Il lie main case.
In support OF her claims, the plain
tiff offered in evidence written in
strument, alleging it to be contract
OF marriage. The defendant denied its
genuineness, as well as its effect, il
genuine, but upon both of these de-
lenses the Judge OF the Superior Court
| held against him, and admitted the
contract in evidence. 1t must be
borne in mind that the written con-
tract did not constitute the marriage,
but was only an evidence of it, as the
law of this State provides that mar
riage is a personal relation arising out
of civil contract, and that consent
alone will not constitute a marriage,
bat it must be followed by a solemni-
zation, or by mutual assumption OF
marital rights, duties apd obligations.
But the defendant, being a citizen
OF Nevada, had exercised his right
under the. Act of Congress and brought
an action in the Circuit Court OF the
United States to have the written
contract in question declared for
gerry, and to have it decreed to be de-
livered up and Cancelled. In this
action there was no question raised OF
marriage or divorce, nor could there
have been, as the Federal Courts have
no jurisdiction of such questions. A
decree was granted in favor OF the
plaintiff in the Circuit Court, and the
contract ordered to be cancelled.
Here, then, the two cases stand
The State Courts find a marriage to
exist, and decree divorce the Fed
eral Court finds that a contract, which
was portion OF the evidence relied
on to prove the marriage, is forgery
and invalid. 1t must be apparent
that there is no real conflict, for the
decisions are not upon the same ques-
ton. The judgment of the Superior
Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court,
! is the law Of the Sharon case, and
from it no appeal lies to any other
tribunal. 1t is final and conclusive,
and is not in any respect diminis led
or weakened by the decision OF the
Circuit Court against the genuinepess
and validity of the written contract. -
rs. F. Chronicle.