St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-12-07
ELLIS DIED INTERSTATE.
DIVORCED WIFE ASKED TO sE ADMIN
iSTRATRiX
THE REAL WIFE MADE SUCH.
Ellis Divorced Wife and His
Wife at Time of Death Each
Ask to Be Made Administers.
trix OF His Estate-Supreme7
Court Decides for the Wife
nfhor DooiciG-o- -.

Chief Justice Gllflllan yesterday
handed down opinions in five cases. the
first being of considerable interest: q
In 1869 Mathew Ellis and Rachel Cotf
treli, then residents of Wisconsin, were
married. In 1883 they came to ST. Pauf,
to reside and tue following year she OBJ,
tanned divorce. Sept. 2, 1856, Matthew
Ellis married Fisra Wilson, and they
lived together until December last.
when he died. Matthew Ellis died in
testate; his widow, Flora Ellis, asked
the probate court to appoiut her his ad-s
ministratrix. Rachel Ellis, the divorced
wife. appeared and made the same re-
quest. AT the same time brother and
sister of the deceased appeared and
claimed that deceased had made will
still IN force, and asking the court to
make the proper order or decree in the
premises. The court after diSposing of
the minor points decided that the for
mer wife had no right to be appointed
administrative, she having been di-
yorced. according to decree issued in
wisconsin. The court therefore de-
cided that the wife Flora is the admins
tratrix. and to her all the property goes.
The syllabus Of the opinion is as fol-
lows:
In re appeal of Rachel Ellis ct al, appellants,
vs. Flora ELLIS, ADMINISTRATIVE of estate of
matthew Ellis, deceased, respondent. Or
der affirmed. GILFILLAN, c. j. =
Collision and agreement between the
parties to an action for divorce as 10
the Judgment TO be rendered, does not
affect the Jurisdiction nor render the
Judgment entered void.
The act of 1889 known as the "Pro-
bate Code" was properly passed.
froof that deceased party executed
will which he afterwards DESTROYED
will not defeat All application for an
administrator unless its contents can be
proved with such degree of certainty
that 1t may be established as will.
A copy OF the proceedings of court
of another state is admissible here, if
authenticated according to the statute
OF this state, though not according to
the act of congress.
An authenticated copy of Judgment
roll IS evidence of all that is properly
contained III it. and IS evidence prima
| facie that the Judgment was properly
entered in the judgment book.
That an action was tried in county
other than that declared by statute the
proper county for It's trial does not 90 to
the jurisdiction
That the <wife.tIle plaintiff in an action
for divorce, was induced to bring it by
persuasion, iil-treatnlent and threats by
the husband that ne would continue
such i'll treatment unless she brought
the action, does not affect the validity OF
the Judgment in collateral proceeding.
Where III IAN action III the court of
another state, Tor divorce, both parties
voluntarily appear and submit to the
jurisdiction, they are bound by the
Judgment. and cannot avoid it in COLI
lateral proceeding In this state, by proof
that when the action was brought and.
Judgment rendered neither of them was
resident In that state, but that both
were residents in this state.
The syllabi in the other opinions
handed down by the chief justice were
as follows: