The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1895-04-24
The Law on Divorces.

The State Supreme Court last night
rendered its decision in the case OF
"Charles w. McCreery, plaintiff, appel
liant, vs. J. Henry Davis, defendant, re.
spondent," affirming the decision Of the
lower court, Justice Pope rendering the
decision.
This action was brought to test the
question as to whether South Carolina
marriage, no divorce being allowed in
this State, could be dissolved by the
courts Of any other State; in other words
the action was designed to test the ques-
ton whether 8 judgment Of divorce
granted in another State than this in an
action by q wife domiciled in another
State against husband domiciled in this
State, and to which action such husband
neither appeared, answered nor de-
INJURED or was at any time present in
such other State while the action was
pending-whether that judgment Of di-
vorce would be recognized by the courts
of this State as valid divorce here.
The facts upon which the case came up
were briefly these: Mrs. @. w. Nc.
.Creery moved from Columbia to Chicago,
ILL.,, and after years residence there OBJ
tanned q divorce. This aston came up
upon q question as to whether Mrs. Mo
Creery would, in the event Of the death
of Mr.. Met Creery be entitled to dover in
his real estate. Messrs. Lyles and Muller
appeared for the plaintiff and Mr.. 81.
Cowper Patton for the defendant. The
case was decided by Judge Witherspoon,
and after being twice argued before the
Supreme Court that tribunal sustains the
lower court.
The courts have previously given inti-
nations from time to time on the ques-
tion, bnt never direct decision. In this
particular case the marriage was not ce!e-
brated In South Carolina, but In Brook
lyD, N. Y, the husband being resident
Of this State, and the bride resident OF
Brooklyn.
The first question that arose in the case
was whether this marriage could ba con-
sidered South Carolina marriage. The
respondent argued that the husband
being resident of this State the law was
that the wife's residence followed that of
the husband and the marriage was to all
legal intents and purposes South Caro-
lima marriage, as much 80 as If 1t took
place here. It was also urged that even
II this was considered New York mar
riage the courts of that State would not
recognize divorce granted by the courts
of another State, where the defendant was
not personally served and did not answer
as in the case. It was admitted on both
sides that the divorce was valid and bona
fide, according to the laws of Illinois.
The decision settles the law as to mar
riages in South Carolina. The court held
that marriage in this State could not be
dissolved by divorce proceedings here or
in any other State; that marriage was
civil contract. They refused to accept the
doctrine that divorce was q proceeding
in rem, whereby suit in another State
to which the husband here domiciled did
not appear, answer or demur would
thereby enable the court Ct another State
to pronounce valid judgment Of divorce
against the husband. They held that
they were not bound to recognize the
judgment Of divorce rendered by the
courts Of Illinois, under that article OF the
Constitution of the United States which
requires that acts or judgments OF any
State should have the same force and
effect in every other State Of this Union
that they were entitled to have IN the
State where rendered. The judgment
showed that in analogy to the views sug,.
gested in relation to divorce were those OF
the Courts Of the United States and State
Courts in relation to the status of parent
and child, guardian and ward. The
Court devoted much attention to show
that marriage has always been considered
q civil contract in this State and that the
doctrine that such contract when e1ecu-
tod became merged and destroyed by the
alleged position Of the creation of status,
q res independent of such civil contract,
does not exist.
"If an opposite conclusion had been
reached by the Court the State might as
well have adopted a divorce law herself"
said an attorney last night.