The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-07-15

sS-E4c> 4AltIeslcl may CeClNe Comfort
from the knowledge that many attorneys
think Judge Bel,h--s view wrong. and that
JUDGES outside OF this city have spoken 10
that effect
The peculiar matrimonial, contract re-
ferred to IN This State as q Reno marriage
Is that n which one % the parties IS q IL
vorced person. the divorce haying been
granted in TINS State within less than q
year before In. Gate OF the marriage. II
l.S' the legislature a-nenc-1 section . OF
the Civil Code 50 as to provide tsaI q cl-
band or wife within one year from the date
Of the decree OF divorce Then Reno be
His 6ecis!o, was rendered IL the divorce
suit Of F.r.tsrica V. Adler against Ben
Adler. Her first husband. Dunbar. secu1e;
divorce May ?. 1893 Adler was named
in Durbar's complaint. He and Ms. Dun
bar were married AZ Reno June % ~.
They were not 50 tend Of each other Ei.er
marriage as before. and on June Is. -s.s,
Mrs. Adler brought suit fo- divorce q
the ground OF cruelty. In his answer. Ac-
Ter alleged that she haa bee -, ds ,S Sso ssn5 IS
union vas void Consequently 8 divorce
could got be granted. be reasoned: sno IN
stead he asked th<t the marriage pc De
ciarcd null. Judge Hebbard. IN his written
Nc reason Is apparent from the language
Of the section why an arbitrary prohioltoly
period Of year. OF OF any certain HAt4
period should be made, and there can De no
good reason given
ducei the passage OF the section. by an ex-
Animation Of n. law Of the State OF Ore
goa upon the same subject z.,,.
.'ir. that State there - no HNeG p.obio!torT
period. but the law - 10 the effect that,
peaGing an appea! from a decree o. divorce.
tine in which Il may be taken. the parties
shall be Incapable Of contracting marriage
with third person.
an California an appeal from final tVeg-
r.le.t mus; be taken in six months; an ep-
peal from an order granting or refusing
new trial In sixty Days.
The proportion Of divorce DEGREES sp-
pealed from is Infinitely small. and there
fore the prohibition in section s. discrtrn-
mates against the many. for the protection
Of the few: IL IS an arbitrary law
The laws Of all civilized nations favor
marriage; this law Is IN restraint thereof.
Marriage II this State IL declared TO be
civil contract: il ought. therefore, 70 he
governed by the rules which govern other
contracts save that IL cannot be broken
at mere will Of the parties thereto, and
ought not be entered into again by the par,
ties. with third parties. after divorce. Until
the p9;sieit,y Q. /. reversal OF 'he oe'fee
This marriage being valid under the laws
o. the State o. Nevada IS VALID here, and
Defendants prayer for the srnulment there
of must be denied. and the case restored 10
the calendar for determination o: the issue
Of a divorce 10 plaintiff
The controversies arising out o. the con-
h.ct Of the marriage laws in the various
States and Territories ought TO be ended.
In the concession 10 the general Govern
rnent of the right 20 legislate upon the sub
of morality and common sense
Judge Belcher's decision. which prompted
AdleTs attorney 10 present the claim that
there had been no marriage, was rendered
on June l4.I in the sui; OF Mrs AbhIe Rose
Wood against the estate Of her deceased
husband Joseph Nj Wood 10 compel the
PAYMENT OF SIC 90 and interest on an ante
nuI.tiei contract that Wood made with her
Judge Trout rejected the claim IN the
opinion concerning the marriage. in which
the charge o: invalldity had been made by
the dttendants In the suit He said:
distfrc.ion exists between statutes which
merely prohibit marriage Of divorced per-
con 10 a third person, within stated time,
statutes which declare such second nisr-
rage Illegal and void from the beginning
As to the first. The marriage might be held
valid. and the offending party or parties
merely punished: but as 20 the second. the
parties have no capacity TO contract mar
rage Between them the ceremony OF mar
tiors are merely rieretricjous. L
Sc impossible 70. the parties 10 a marriage
contract to stipuiate away the force and
The contract II suit was entered Into In
California. ana Is sought to be enforced IN
California. Confessedly. II the marriage OF
81 California Il would have been null and
void. Is 81 any the less so because cele-
hrated in Nevada, IN open defiance OF he
contract in suit. which the parties could
not have enforced If they had tntermar-
r,ed in this State within the prohibited
period valid contract and enforceable
merely because the marriage which fol-
lowed though within the prohibited Pc
ROD was performed in another Jurisdiction?
= Kentucky statute authorizing
divorces provided that even the injured
party should have no authority TO contract
another marriage within two years OF the
date Of the final decree. II an instance.
tie injured party did marty again within
the prohibited period. but the Supreme
Court held tina; the ceremony was empty.
and that her status remained unchanged
Lord Cranworth. in Brook vs.. Brook,
H l. Cas-. ,GreenEow James's Execu-
tors 50 Va. $50: IS An 81. Rep, eo5). states
that the general rule-that marriage, II good
in the country where IL was contracted is
good eyeryw here's nevertheless subject
10 qualifications one Of them being that
the marriage Is not a marriage prohibited
ty the laws Of the country TO which the
parties contracting marriage belong
MARK ge in England. before the time
a decree In India divorcing one Of the
parties had become operative, was held
void
the law OF the domicile controls No other
jurisdiction can relieve against it
.The plaintiff had full knowledge Of the
law when she made the contract In eues-
ton and being herself the inhibited party,
has nothing TO COMPLAIN against IN view Of