New-York tribune., 1901-04-19
RULING IN DIVORCE SUITS.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURTS
OPINION

Washington, April ls-The written opinion Of
Justice Gray, OF the United States Supreme Court,
IN the divorce decided by the court last Mon
day became available to-day, thus affording the
FIRST opportunity for inspection Of Justice Grays
language OF the three cases decided, only one.
that OF StreitwoH agt Streitwolf dealt with
Dakota divorce. In that case the husband. resi-
dent OF New-Brunswick N J., had visited North
Dakota Tor 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 mentioned his May visit to any
of his friends relatives in the East The de-
cision In this case, aside from the recital OF the
history Of fl. was brief. being in the following
words:
good faith of the beliant for ninety days as pre-
facts evidence wapranted and and indeed reauired
domiciie in the State Of Torth ' Dakota i when he
fsa 9bsaned es divorce there and it Is not pretended
I North Dakota or was ever IN that STATE The
The other in which outside decree was
negatived was that of Bell agt. Bell. the parties
10 which lived 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 a decree
which he asserted was secured from her In a Penn
sylvania court The wife charged that this decree
was fraudulent and the court sustained the
charge. holding that Bell never had lived In Penn
sylvania. Sustaining that decree. Justice Gray
said:
The question in this is OF the validity of the
No valid divorce from the bond OF matrimony can
OF State in which neither party is domiciled.
for divorce must have had bona fide residence
within the State for one year next before the filing
vana had no jurisdiction Of the husbands suit
in and he decree eerf o daoree Wa s
Titled to no faith and credit in NewYork in any
other State.
The only case of the three in which the court
Sustained the decree that of Atherton agt.
Atherton. In that the record showed that the
Athertons had lived in Kentucky. but that wife
deserted her husband and returned TO her home In
New-York. The husband brought suit in Kentucky
his lawyer informing or attempting TO inform Mrs.
Atherton Of the action by sending to her copy
OF his petition through the mails. The New-York
courts held the decree to be invalid. but the de-
cision was overruled. Justice Gray said:
In this case the divorce in Kentucky was by the
domicile Of the husband and which was the only
sngle question be decided the validity Of that
divorce. granted after such notice had been given
Continuing the court held that there had been
due compliance with the law, though Mrs.
Atheron had failed receive the letter inclosing
q copy OF the petition for divorce
THE question" said Justice Gray 'is not whether
she had actual notice of the proceedings but
whether such reasonable steps had been taken to
give her notice bind her by the decree IN the
State Of the domicile. We are Of opinion that the
undisputed facts show that such efforts were
ouired by the statutes of Kentucky, and were actu
ally made to give the wife actual notice of the suit
filed in Kentucky as TO make the decree OF the
court there granting divorce upon the ground that
she had abandoned her husband, as binding on her
SIS il she had been served with notice in Kentucky
had voluntarily appeared In the suit Binding
her to that full extent, IL established beyond con-
frsdiction that she had abandoned her husband and
precludes her from asserting that she left him on
account Of his cruel treatment"
Justice Gray then concludes that as the proceed.
tha Ia
credit hy the courts Of the State of NewYork as 1T
receives in Kentucky.