Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-04-19
VALIDITY OF. DIVORCES
TEXT OF JUSTICE GRAY.S RECENT
OPINION.
Parties to n Suit Must Have n Bona
Eide DOmiciIe I'm State Where
Action is Initiated.

justice Grays written opinion on the di-
vorce cases handed down Monday in the
United States Supreme Court has been
made public.
OF the three cases decided only one that
of Streitwolf VS.. Streitwolf, dealt with a
Dakota divorce case. in that case the hus-
band, a resident of Brunswick n. j., had
visited North Dakota for three weeks in
May, 1897, and in August of that year re-
turned and instituted his suit for divorce
three days after 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 the
recital of the history of it, was very brief
being in the following words:
The law of North Dakota requires a
domicile in good faith of the libelant for
ninety days as prerequisite to jurisdiction
OF a case of divorce. The facts in evidence
warranted and indeed required the finding
that the husband had no bona fide domicile
IN the state of North Dakota when he OBJ
tanned divorce there, and il is not pre-
tended that the wife had an independent
domlclle In North Dakota or was ever in
that state. The court of that state. there
fore, had no jurisdiction"
No Legal DOmiciIe in Pennsylvania.
The other case in which an outside decree
was negatiyed was that of Bell vs. Bell
the parties to which resided in Erie county
N Y. The case originated in 1894, and the
husband, Frederick Bell resisted the wife's
proceeding in the supreme court of Erie
county for divorce with decree of divorce
which he claimed to have secured from
her in Pennsylvania court. The wife
charged that this decree was fraudulent
and the court sustained the charge, holding
that Bell never had resided in Pennsyl-
not n Ia,e--
said:
The question in this case is OF the valid
ity of the divorce obtained by the husband
in Pennsylvania. No valid divorce from the
bond of matrimony can be decreed on con-
structive service by the courts of a state
in which neither party is domiciled. And
by the law of Pennsylvania every petitioner
for a divorce must have had bona fide resi-
dence within the state for one year next
before the filing of the petition. Therefore,
the court in Pennsylvania had no jurisdic-
ton of the husbands suit for divorce be-
cause neither party had domicile in Penn
sylvania, and the decree of divorce was
entitled to no faith and credit in New York
or in any other state.
Had Il Bona Eide Residence.
The only case of the three i'm which the
court sustained the decree was that of
Anterior against Atherton. In that case
the record showed that the Athertons had
resided in Kentucky, but that the wife de-
serted her husband and returned to her
home in New York. The husband brought
suit in Kentucky, his lawyer notifying or
attempting to notify Mrs. Anterior of the
action by sending her a copy of his petit
ton through the mail. The New York
courts held the decree to be invalid but
the decision was overruled. Justice Gray
said:
In this case the divorce in Kentucky
was by the court of the state which had
been the undoubted domicfle of the hus-
hand, and which was the only matrimonial
domicile of the husband and wife. The
single question to be decided is the validity
of that divorce, granted after such notice
had been given as was required by the
statutes of Kentucky" Continuing the
court held that there had been due compli-
ance with the law, even though Mrs. Ath-
erton had failed to receive the letter in
closing copy of the petition for divorce.
THE question said Justice Gray in that
connection, lis not whether she had ac-
tual notice of the proceedings, but whether
such reasonable steps had been taken to
give her notice as to bind her by the de-
cree in the state Of the domicile. We are
of opinion that the undisputed facts show
that such efforts were required by the
statutes of Kentucky and We're actually
made to give the wife actual notice of the
suit filed in Kentucky, to make the
decree of the court there, granting divorce
upon the ground that she had abandoned
her husband, 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 his cruel treatment"
Justice 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 receives in
Kentucky.