Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-04-19
DAKOTA DIVORCES LEGAL.
supreme Court. Decision Does Not
Annul Them.

supreme Courts Decision Does Not
Annul Them.
Washington, April l9-The written
opinion of Justice Gray of the United
States supreme court on the divorce
cases passed on by the court last Mon
day has become aavilable, thus afford
ling the first opportunity for inspection
of Justice Gray.s language.
Two of the three decisions were based
on the fact that the divorces had not
been obtained according TO the laws OF
the state where the suits were brought.
and We're invalid for that reason. The
decisions do not question many way the
validity of divorces in any state when
obtained according to the laws of the
state where suit is brought.
OF the three cases decided, only one,
that of streitwolf va streitwolf, dealt
with Dakota divorce case. In that
case the husband, resident of Bruins
wick, n. j.. had visited North Dakota
for three weeks in May. 1897. and in
August of that year returned and insti-
tuted his suit for divorce three days af-
ter his arrival the second time. never
having mentioned his May visit to any
of his friends or relatives in the east.
The decision in this case. aside from
theoretical Of the history of ii, was brief.
being in the following words:
The Ian OF North Dakotoa requires a
domicile in good fai,hsof the libe,lant
for ninety days as a prerequisite 10 jur-
isdietion of case OF divorce. The facts
in evidence Warranted. and, indeed. re-
quired the finding tina, the husband had
no bona fide domicile in the state of
North Dakota When he obtained di-i
8vorce there, and ii is not pretended that
the Wife had an independent domcile in
North Dakota. or wasever in that state.
The court of that state, therefore. had
no jurisdiction.
The other cas- in Which an outside
decree was nesatived was that of Bcll
8 Bell, tie parties to which resided IN
Erie county, New York The case orisi-
mated in 1894, and the husband. Freder-i
lex Bell. resisted the wifeis proceeding
in the supreme court of Erie county for
divorce With a decree Of divorce which
III claimed 10 hav. secured from her III
i Pennsylvania court. The wife charged
that this decree was fraudulent. and the
court sustained the charge, holding that
Bsii never had resided in PENNSYLVANIA.
Sustaining that decree, Justice Gray
said
The question in this case is of the
validity OF the divorce obtained by the
husband in I'enns ylvania. No valid d.
vorce from the bond of matrimony can
be derreed on constructive service by
the courts Of state in which neither
party IS domiciisa- And by the law of
Issnnsylyania every petitioner for di-
vorce must haze bona ficle residence
Within the state for one year next be-
fore thu filing of the petition. There
fore The court in Pennsylvania had no
aurisdiction of the husbands suit for
divorce. because neither party had a
domlcile in Pennsylvania, and the de-
cree Of divorce was entitled TO no faith
Land credit III New York or in any other
state
The only case of the three in which
the cctrt sustained the decree wassthat
Icf Atharten Us. Atherton. In that case
he record showed that the Athertons
rad resided in Kentucky. but that the
wife deserted her husband and returned
10 her nome in New York. The husband
breugn; sui, III Kentucky his lawyer
lrotifying or attempting to Eotify Mrs
Atherton Of the action by sending her a
copy Of his petition thru the mail. The
New York courts heid the decree to be
Invalid but the decision was oyerruled