The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1891-10-01

nlZed and followed in Il number of cases.
Judge lZler here quotes Il numbrr Of
authorities in support of his posi-! ion.
The Court is asked in this case to de-
clare the decree OF divorce obtained by
Thomas Nj. Peoples in Florida valid, his
second marriage with Sarah Ann Caller
lawful and the issue thereof legitimate
Ill South Carolina. The question pre-
sented is, Shall the ieC dOniciiU pre- vail
or the ie.c tori c0ntIUct'tS? This IS Il
grave question. | am of opinion, how
ever. that this State will not consent
to recognize the proceedings of any
other State which are 50 contrary to it's
views OF public policy and morality,
and that 1T is not bound TO 90 so.
Admitting that it never has been
formally decided that the doctrine of
Lolley'S case is the law Of the Cour.s
or South Carolina, the question is rres-
entet, shall our Courts Iollow the com
mon law as declared in the case, or
shall they follow the dicta Of Lords
WeStbury, penZance and others!
nave no hesitation IN Slying that the
public policy OF the State demands that
the Courts should be influenced by the
views OF our own Judges to adopt as to
the settled law of this State the doctrine
OF Lolley'S case, as declared by the
twelve Judges of England. In Duke
VS. fulmei. Q6o2D Chancellor Ward
law said: "Ihe common law aS declared
Dy the Judges OF England is clrar
against the recognition OF foreign ,i-
vorces as dissolving marriages CON.
trlcted in England
l therefore hold in the language of
Judge ONeali in Boyce vs.. Ovens
that "the marriage contract n th:s
State Is regarded aS indiSSoluUle by any
human means. Nothing short of the
actual or presumed death Of one of the
parties can have the effect of tllschary-
ing It's obligations or preventing its
| legal ELECTS The decree of divorce
pronounced by the Circuit Court of
Florida does not, in my opinion, effect
The status of Caroline. who, at all times.
had been an inhabit of South Carolina.
and when Thomas NJ Peopcs returned
| 10 inns State permanently TO reside the
| shield which the decree of divorce threw
| around him in the State of Florida was
WltnuraWn, and he became subject to
| tno laws OF South Carolina, by which
neither his matrimonial status in
Florida nor his subsequent marriare
can be recognlZei. Under the laws of
South Carolina the Florida divorce did
not operate to dissolve the South Caro-
INA marriage; therefore, the second
marriage must be held invalid ana the
children of said marriage illeyiti,nate
i'll South Carolina
The law of this Court is, a5.we have
Seen, that no foreign tribunal is com,
Petent TO pronounce Il decree of div )rce
Il Vlnculo of Il South Carolina marria.re
or pronounce any other decree tha,
such as would be allowed by the lt>
loci contractus. In tins connection
would call special attention to an al ticl
TO he found in the Carolina Lrw .Journ
al entitled "Foreign divorces S of caro-
lima Marriages" page 317. am full,
aware that in the United States, oui
side OF South Carolina. the Courts i,
matters of divorce are governed yen
orally by the lex domocilli, and nut b.
lex loci contractus, but South Carnln;
occupies unique position in respec
TO marriage and divorce. Here the lc,
loci contractus governs. Here tn,
marriage contract Is regarded as indis
Soluble, either by consent of the par
ties or by the Judgment or statute OF
any foreign tribunal or Legislature.
1t is therefore ordered adjuIged that
the decree of the Pro 'a,r Court III this
case be, and the same is hereby, reyrrs