The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1891-10-01
AN INDISSOLUBLE TIE,
AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE
JAS. r. lZIAR.


MarriaEes Contracted After u Divorce is
Granted in Another state are Illegal.
Other States Cannot Controvort Oar
Laws.
An important decision was lately
rendered by Judge .Izlar in case COM
ing before him on appeal from Pro-
bate Court, rs it fixes the status of par
ties married in South Carolina and
securing a divorce IN another State.
The case arose thus: Thomas NJ. Peo-
pies married In this State, afterward
went to Florida, where he secured a
divorce and remarked. and afterward
returned to this State. On his death
letters OF administration were granted
TO Rowland w. Peoples, his son by the
Florida marriage, ami petition was
made to the Probate Court OF COlleton
County to have the letters of admins
tration revoked and granted to the
petitioner. Georgianna White.
AS matter Of law the Judge of Pro-
bate found that there was no ground
for revoktng the letters of admlnistra-
tion previously granted to Rowland w.
Peoples, that under the facts before
him Rowland w. Peoples is the legiti
mate son of Thomas M. Peoples, de-
ceased, "for. in the first place, there is
no evidence to show that the first mar
rlage of Thomas NJ. Peoples was cele
DRAFTED In this State, and hence the dicta
or the South Carolina Judges, holding
that u marriage celebrated In this State
cannot be dissolved save by the laws of
thls State. have no application to the
case at bar; that even If the proof had
SHOWN that the first marriage was con-
tracsed In this State, yet the decree Of
divorce in Florida dissolved that mar
rage, and hence the second marriage in
the State OF Florida was valid, and the
issue thereof, Rowland w. Peoples,
was legitimate" and thus finding the
Judge OF Probate dismissed the peti-
tion.
AFTER considering questions relating
TO the first marriage in this State, the
securing OF domicile In Florida, and
the purpose thereof, and the subsequent
second marriage, Judge Izlar says:
IL now becomes necessary to consider
the force and effect Of said Judgment of
divorce. The American doctrine of
divorce is clearly stated by Stewart in
the 9th vol. of the Am. and Eng. Ency.
OF Law, 746 ct seq. From Mr.. Stewart
1T appears that "every State has the
policy; to determine the status of its
own citizens, and to choose for itself
the terms and conditions under which
It's own Courts shall grant divorces,
and divorce granted in accordance
with Its laws must be valid within it's
own territory. But no State has pri,
marily the right to push its domestic
policy beyond its boundaries and into
other States, or to dissolve the marriage
or change the domestic status of per
sons belonging to other States; and the
| ACTS OF one State have force and au-
thorlty IN other States only by consent
OF such States, that is t. say by the
comfy OF nations or international law,
or by virtue OF some paramount law.
such as the United States Constitution,
or treaty between natiOus." The
principles enunciated by Mr.. Stewart
on this subject will doubtless be ac-
| cepted in all States where divorces are
allowed by law. but in South Carolina
divorce Ui1ac,tio Is not allowed by law.
| Here the marriage contract is regarded
rs indissOluble by any human means,
and 1t has always been considered as
contrary to public policy, and as op-
posed to the good order and we'll being
of society, to dissolve by divorce the
sacred bonds OF matrim0uy.
This policy has never at any time i'm
the history of the State failed to have
the support and approval Of the bench
and bar, and to receive the hearty en-
| dorsement of all the citizens of inttlli-
gence and culture in the State. 1t is
| true that at one time I'm the history of
| the State. when 1t WAS ruled by the alien
| and the stranger, and when the General
Assembly was composed principally OF
corrupt freebooters and ignorant ne
| grOes. the "stern policy" which had pre-
viously prevailed was relaxed. The
| new policy which was thus forced upon
the State did not meet with favor. AS
soon, therefore. as intelligence and vir-
tue again took the place of ignorance
and vice, the stern policy" was resum-
ed, and has ever since been firmly ad-
hered 10 and jealously guarded.
| | am inclined to think that the divorce
under consideration, even II tested by
the American rules, would be he'd in.
valid to affect the matrimonial status
OF Caroline Peoples. Under the clr-
| cumStanceS OF this Case am persuaded
that the decree OF divorce could do no
more than affect the matrimonial status
OF Thomas Nj. Peoples. Itcould not, in
my opinion. fix, regulate and control
the status OF Caroline Peoples, who at
| all times had been an inhabitant and
ClIlZen vi SOuIn CaTOllnd.
Had Thomas NJ. Peoples continued
his residence in the State of Florida,
and had the operation Of the Judgment
of Divorce been confined to that State,
South Carolina would have been com
PEELED to acquiesce in the status fixed
upon MIN by that decree, but when ne
quit his domicile of choice and returned
to his domicile of origin, the judgment
OF divorce ceased to shield him. IL
could not push its effects out into South
Carolina to the defeat of its settled pol
icy. The status Of Thomas M. Peoples
acquired by that judgment in Florida
cannot be recognized in him as a citizrn
OF South Carolina. There Is no princi-
pie OF comfy which demands this OF
South Carolina. If he would enjoy the
liberty given by the decree of divorce
then he must remain in the State or
Florida. Let the rule contended for in
this case be once established, then sure
~ Will the peace Of society he jeopar-
dlZed, the marriage bonds tie weak ened,
Gl