The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-27

after the wedding the husband left New
York and finally settled in Connecticut
in 1877, where in 1881 he obtained a dl-
vorce in the Superior Court of Litchfeld
county, remarrying in the following
year. In June, 1899, thirty-one years
after the original marriage, the wife,
HARRIET HADDoCK, commenced an &C.
ton for a separation in the Supreme
! Court of this county, and obtained per-
sonal service Upon the husband. The
husband set up in his answer the Con
neoticut divorce of 1881, but on the trial
before a referee the judgment roll in the
Connecticut case was excluded, and the
referee found that the wife was entitled
to O separation and to alimony OF $3.50
o wear. The referees report was sus-
tanned, and a judgment for separation
and alimony was entered in favor of the
wife. AS Mr.. Justice WHITE says: The
Federal question is, Did the court below,
violate the Constitution Of the United
States by refusing to give to the decree
of divorce rendered in the State of Con-
necticut the faith and credit to which it
was entitled?' it being claimed by the
husband that under the first section of
Article ". of the Federal Constitution,
providing that full faith and credit
shall be given in each State to the public
acts, records and judicial proceedings
of every other State, a Judgment OF
divorce obtained in one State should be
recognized in every other State.
| In fbia n mac at the TINA OF
the original marriage, both parties re-
sided in New York, and the wife con-
tinued to live in this State. When the
husband obtained his Connecticut di-
vorce he served notice upon the wife
by publication only, and she did not
appear in the action. There was, there
fore, no actual personal service upon
the wife, but only constructive service,
which was made good by the statutes Of
Connecticut.
Mr.. Justice WHITE comedies that all
governments must possess inherent
power over the married relation, as
regards their own citizens, and that
where a court Of one State, conformably
to the laws Of such State or the State
through its legislative department, has
acted concerning the dissolution Of the
marriage tie, as to a citizen Of that State,
such action is binding in that State as
to such citizen. But he points out that
the final question in this case is whether
to enforce in another jurisdiction the
Connecticut decree would not be to
enforce in one State a personal judg-
ment rendered in another State against
a defendant over whom the court of the
State rendering the judgment has not
acquired Jurisdiction" He alludes to
the contention that IL the power of one
( State to decree the dissolution OF a mar
riage which would be compulsory upon
both parties are subject to the jurisdic-
ton, the right to obtain a divorce could
be so hampered and restricted as to be
In effect impossible Of exercise. And
in answer he says that the preponder-
ance OF inconvenience would be against
the contention that a State should have
| the power to exert it's authority concern
ing the dissolution of marriage as to
those not amenable to its jurisdiction.
By the application Of such a rule, he
thinks, each State would acquire the
power of overshadowing the authority
| Of all the other States, thus causing the
marriage tie to be less protected than
any other civil obligation. and this to be
accomplished by destroying individual
| rights without a hearing and by tri-
bunals having no jurisdiction.
To relieve the anxiety of all persons
who have obtained doubtful divorces
in other States, we can assure them that
if the defendant is personally served
within the State granting the decree, or
If the defendant by Encouragement
appears through an attorney, the divorce
will stand good. The bearing of this
decision is only upon cases where there
has been no voluntary appearance or
no personal service within the jurisdic-
ton.
Now, the law in this State has long
been settled. In the case of People Us.
BAKER the Court Of Appeals decided
that the court of another State could not
| dissolve the marital relations Of a citizen
| Of this State without a voluntary APP
pearance on his part or without personal
service OF process on him in that State.
This rule has been adhered to stead
tasty by the Court Of Appeals. AS re-
Gently as 1901, in the case Of WINSTON re.
WINSTON, Judge GRAY, in rendering
| the opinion of the court, said:
That q judgment. rendered upon constructive
service OF process. II without force against the
personal status OF q nonresident and non appear
Ing defendant has been frequently the subject Of
judicial discussion; and that the divorce decree in
question was without Jurisdiction as to this plain
til, always q resident OF this State, cannot be
questioned under the authorities"
As Mr.. Justice WHITE points out, the
courts Of New York have invariably re-
fused to treat a divorce rendered in an
other State as entitled to be enforced
in New York by virtue of the full faith
and credit" clause of the Constitution
Of the United States; and have refused
generally to give effect to such DEGREES
even by State comfy.
Divergent views as to the validity of