The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-05-24
CALIFORNIA DIVORCES AND EAST
ERN DECISIONS.

The Supreme Court of New York, sitting
in general term. has decided that Califor-
MIA divorce cannot dissolve New York
marriage, unless both parties to the mar
rage were present in this State at the time
the proceedings were instituted, and the
defendant was duly served with the sum-
mons in this State. The decision is in line
with the general tenor of the New York
doctrine on divorce. In the case just de-
cided, the plaintiff came from New York to
this State and established a dOmicie here,
the wife remaining in the East. When he
had resided here long enough to enable him
70 sue for divorce he brought suit and
served his wife with the papers in New
Jersey. He sued on the ground Of deSer-
ton; the suit was undcfended; the plaintiff
got a verdict, and forthwith returned to
New York and married another woman.
The decision Of the general term now makes
the second marriage Invalid
The Constitution provides that &" the cti-
Zens of each State shall be entitled TO all
privileges and immEni.ieS Of citizens in the
several States" Thus, if citizen of New
York comes here with his family, and es-
tablishes his home here, he is entitled TO
take advantage Of our divorce laws, and a
divorce granted by a court of record in this
State is entitled to respect in New York or
in any other State to which he may remove.
But the proceeding must not be tainted
with the suspicion that he came here for the
purpose OF obtaining the divorce, in fraud
of the rights Of his wife under the laws of
New York. If a California court should
permit itself to be used as an instrument to
defeat the operation Of the laws Of other
Gtata 70 INN i0rI1rs 4fra1
those laws, its DEGREES could not be re-
spected outside of the State. 1t may grant
relief to citizens Of this State, without re-
gard to the accident Of their having been
previously citizens of other States. But
where it appears that the defendant in a
divorce suit resides in an Eastern State,
and fails to put in defense, the plaintiff
should furnish the court with good and sutfi-
cient reasons why the case is tried ex parte,
if he desires the divorce to hold.
The basis Of all legal procedure is, or
should be, fairness. Codes Of procedure are
framed with view to prevent IitigantS from
using the machinery of the courts in order
TO obtain an undue advantage over their
opponents. Thus those codes require that
plaintiff shall appriSe defendant of the
nature Of the claim made upon him, and
snail prove 10 the Court that he has done so.
The object Of the rule is that the defendant
shall be put upon his guard, and have an
opportunity to defeat an unjust claim. But
it is evident that proof Of service Of COM
plant and summons, which is all that is
needed in a suit for the collection Of a debt,
falls short OF what equity requires in case
Of divorce, where the defendant is woman
residing on the other size OF the continent.
In such case the Judge feels impelled to
inquire Of the plaintiff why he brought his
suit here, and whether he came here in order
to make tool Of our courts to free him from
a union which the laws and courts of his
own State refused TO dissolve. In a case
where an examination of the plaintiff showed
that this was the fact, and that he mad come
here merely to get a divorce, on the ground
p of desertiOn or some such vague plea, Cali
tornia court would merely do its duty in de-
Ginning to allow its confidence to be abused
for such purpose.
It has been the sense of the people of this
State that matrimonial unions should be dis
soluble for many causes. Citizens. whatever
their opinions may be, must abide by that
law 50 long as it is unrepealed. But it was
never the design of the people of California
to convert this State into a divorce shop,
where citizens of other States who had got
tired of their wives could come here to get
rid of them. That business, which has
fl0urished to such an extent In the past that
the proportion Of divorces to marriages in
San Francisco is absurdly exaggerated in
the court returns, has been disgrace and a
blot upon the fair fame of the State.