The age-herald., 1901-04-19
JUSTICE GREY ON
 THE DIVORCE LAW Takes Up the Famous AthertOn
 Case from Kentucky OTHER CASES DISCUSSED 
 In North Dakota Proceedings Where Husband Left the State the Court
 Holds That Local Courts
 Had No Jurisdiction.
OTHER CASES DISCUSSED

Washington, April 1s-The written opin- ion of Justice Grey of the Supreme Court of the United States on the divorce cases passed on by the court last Monday be- cause available today, thus affording pub lication for Justice Grey's language.
 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 Athertons had resided in Kentucky but that the wife deserted her husband and returned 10 her home in New York. The husband brought suit in Kentucky, his lawyer mo- tifying or attempting to notify Mrs, Ath- erton of the action by sending her copy of his petition through the mail The New York courts held the decree to be invalid but the decision was overruled;
 Justice Grey said:
 "In this case the divorce in Kentucky was by the court of the state which had been the undoubted domicile of the hus- band and which was the only matrimonial domicile of the husband and wife. The single question to be decided is the va lidity of that divorce, granted after such notice bad been given as was required by the statutes of Kentucky"
 The court held that there had been due compliance with the law, even though Mrs. Atherton had failed to receive the letter enclosing a copy of the petition for divorce.
 The question:" said Justice Grey in that connection, lis not whether she had actual notice of the proceedings but whether such reasonable steps had been taken to give her notice as to bind her by the decree ;n tho state of the domicile- We are of the opinion that the unds- puted facts show that such efforts were required by the statutes of Kentucky and were accordingly made to give the wife actual notice of the suit filed in Ken lucky so as to make the decree of the court there granting divorce upon the ground that she had abandoned her hus- band as binding on her, as if she had been served with notice in Kentucky or had voluntarily appeared in the suit. Binding her to that full extent, it estab- lished beyond contradiction that she had abandoned her husband and precludes her from asserting that she left him on ac- count of ill treatment"
 Proceeding Was Regular.
 Jupstice Gray then concludes that as the : proceeding was regular, the decree Is en- titled to as great credit by the courts of the State of New York as it received n Kentucky.
 Of the thtee cases decided, only one that of Streitwolf vs Streitwolf = deal with was left for future decision. Th' decision in this case, aside from the re cital of the story of it, was as follows:
 The law of North Dakota requires g domicile in good faith of the lfbellant for ninety days as prerequisite to 5urisdic- tion of case of divorce The facts and evidence warranted and indeed required the finding that the husband had no bona f1de domicile in the State of North Da- kota when he obtained a divorce there, and 1t is not pretended that the wife had an independent domicile in North Dakota or was ever in that State. The court of that State therefore had no Jurisdiction" The other case. in which an outside de- cree was negatived, 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 Bell, resisted the wife's proceeding in the Su- preme Court of Erie County for divorce with a decree of divorce which he claimed to have secured from her in a Pennsyl vania court. The wife charged that this decree was fraudulent, and the court sus- tained the charge, holding that Bell never had resided in Pennsylvania. Sustaining that decree, Justice Gray said:
 The question in this case is of the val idity of the divorce obtained by the hus- band in Pennsylvania. No valid divorce from the bonds of matrimony can be de- creed on constructive service by the courts of state In which neither party is domiciled. And by the law of Pennsyl- vania every petitioner for a divorce must have had bona fide residence within the state for one year next before the filing of the petition. Therefore the court in Pennsylvania had no Jurisdiction of the husbands suit for divorce because neither party had a domicile in Pennsylvania and the decree of divorce was entitled to no faith and credit in New York or In any other state.