Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1901-04-25
THAT DIVORCE OPINION.
RulinEs of the United states Supreme Court
That viii Create Confusion In
Numerous Homes.

opinion OF Justice Gray, of the Unit
ed States supreme court. on h di-
voIre cases passed on by the court
last Monday became available yester-
Gay, thus uffording the first opportun-
ity for inspection of Justice Gray's
language. OF the three cases decided
only one, that of Streitwolf VS.. STREET.
wolf, dealt with a Dakota divorce
ease. In that case the husband, a
resident OF Brunswick, n. j., had VS.
tied North Dakota for three weeks in
May. 1897, and in August of that year
returned and instituted his suit for
divorce three days after his arrival
the second time, never having men
toned his May visit to any of his
friends or relatives in the district.
The decision in the case aside from
the recital of the history of it was
very brief, being in the following
words:
THE law of North Dakota requires
n domic;le in good faith of the libel
lent for 80 days as a prerequisite to
jurisdiction of a case of divorce. The
1dCIS III III III
deed, required the finding that the
husband had no bona fide domicile in
North Dakota when he obtained a di-
vorce there, and it is not pretended
that the wife had independent domi-
cile in North Dakota or was even in
that state. The court of that state,
therefore, had no jurisdiction"
The other case in which an outside
decree was neeatived was that of Bell
VS.. Bell, the parties to which resided
IN Erie county, New York. The case
originated in 1894, and the husband,
Frederick, resisted the wife's proceed
ings in the supreme court of Erie
county. The decree of divorce which
he claimed to have eur from a
Pennsylvania court was reversed. Thu
wife charged that this decree was
fraudulent and the court sustained
the charge, holding that Bell never
had resided in Pennsylvania. Sustain
ing hat decree. Justice Gray said:
The question in this cast is of the
validity of the divorce obtained 0v
the husband in Pennsylvania. No val
id divorce from the bond of matri-
mony can be decreed IN constructive
service by the courts of a state in
which neither party is domiciled. And
by The law OF Pennsylvania a petition
er for Il divorce must have had bona
tide residence within the state for one
year next before the filing Of the Pc
tition. Therefore. the court in Penn
s~yIvania had no jurisdiction of the
husbands suit for divorce, eau
neither party had Il domicile in Penn
sylvania, and the decree of divorce
was entitled to no faith and credit III
New York or in any other state
The only case OF the three in which
the court sustained the decree was
that of Atherton VS.. Atherton. In
that case the record showed that the
wife deserted her husband and re
turned to her home in New York. The
husband brought suit in Kentucky
his lawyer notifying or attempting tic
notify Mrs. AthertOn of the action
by sending her a copy of his petition
through the mail. The New York
courts held the decree to be invalid
but the decision was overruled. Jus
tice Gray said:
IN this ease the divorce in Ken
lucky was by the court of the state
which had been the undoubted Gomi-
Gle of the husband and which was the
only matrimonial domicile of the hus-
band and wife. The single question
to he decided is h validity Of that
divorce, granted after such notice had
been given as was required by the
statutes of kentucky"
Continuing, the court said that there
had been Tue compliance with the
law. even though Mrs. Atherton had
failed to receive the letter enclosing
a copy of the petition for divorce.
1.-The question: said Justice Gray.
in that connection, 'is not whether
she had actual notice of the proceed
ings, but whether such reasonable
steps had been taken to give her no.
tice as to bind her by the decree il
the state of the domicile. We are of
the opinion that the u~ndisputed facts
show that such efforts were required
by the starutes of Kentucky and were |
actually made to give the wife actual
notice of the suit filed in Kentucky
so as to make the decree of the court
there granting divorce upon the
ground that she had abandoned her
husband, as binding OF her IS if h
had been served with notice in Ken
lucky, OF had voluntarily appeared in
the suit. Binding her to hat full ex-
tent, it established beyond contradic-
ton that she had abandoned her hus-
and precluded her from assert
ing that she left him on account of
cruel treatment"
Justice Gray then concludes that as
the proceeding was regular the decree
is entitled to as great credit by the
courts of the State of New York as it
il. Kentucky.
Placed ON the Retired List.
Washington, April 19.-Gen. John C..
Gilmore, colonel in the adjutant gen.
erals department, was placed on the
list, yesterday, by operation
of law on account of age.
Baron Fava On the Retired List.
Rome. April 19.-Yesterday King
Emmanuel signed the royal de-
crees placing Baron Fava, late Italian
ambassador to the United States on
he retired list and appointing Mar
3a;s Carbonara di Malaspina his sue
lessor 1T Washington.