The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-11-22
DIVERSE VIEWS IN DIVORCE CASE.

LII 0nS6 v LII w llN LII SnSD SfAoJ.
There appears TO be a difference of
opinion between Judge Morse and the
Utah Supreme Court as to the govern
ing point In the service OF summons by
publication in divorce cases. The SUI
preme Court considers that the vital
point is the establishment within the
State Of the matrimonial residence
therein of both parties; the ''domicilc
OF matrimony.' Where both parties,
living in Utah together as husband and
wife, establish such matrimonial resi-
dencc or domicilc. whether by the orig
inal csta blishment of it through mar
riage in this State or through conjugsl
relations in acquired residence, there
is no objection 10 the court granting a
decree on the service of summons by
publica ton. aud so orders in the Al
drach case, instructiug Judge Morse to
enter the Judgment Of divorce, as IL is
shown that the grounds for 1T are ju.
dicially ample,
On the other hand, Judge Morse con.
siders that the question of matrimonial
domicile is relatively unimportant that
the real question is the suficieucy of
the service Of a summons when it is
made by publica ton. Accordingly, he
will in future follow the rule laid down
by Tho Supreme Court. allowing the
sufficiency of the service by publica-
ton, but will not inquire whether mat
al la,,,ic.1a h1c 6ao,, ctol l,l, Nod
or not as he does not think this the
leading point in The Haddock case, re-
Gently decided in the United States Su.
preme Court.
And there you are. From the same
decision of the Federal Supreme Court,
these two divergent views spring. But
il seems rea asonably clear from the posi-
tiou taken by the Utah Supreme Court,
that any divorce Judgment rendered on
showing otherwise sufficient, where
The matrimonial domicilc has not been
established in Utah, the service of sum
mons by publication Will be held TO be
void. II is true that the Utah Supreme
Court did not rule upon that point, but
expressly excluded :t as not germane
to the case on hearing, which of course
was true. Yet that was really the doe
trne of The Haddock case.
In such d case as the Aldrack suit,
the denial of the suficicncy Of service
by publication would be hardship; for
the very essence of the difficulty of
service is that the Whereabouts of tho
abscondlng or dcscrting matrimonial
partner is unknown. It is probable,
however, wherever such partner may be,
that nc or she either sees ''thc home
paper or is informed by some friend
Of the divorce proceedings, and can de-
fend if that is tho desire. Under
rule which denies the right Of service
by publication, therefore. the sufferer
from descrtion would he denied plain
legal right through no other cause than
that the abscondcr is successful In mid
ing, and that is au obstruction which
can not he overcome unless the culprit
chooses to disclose himself 1t is true
that the same hardships might exist in
case where the ma atrimouial domicile
had not been established in Utah; but
in such case there is still remedy,
the one seeking divorce can 20 into the
jurisdiction where the matrimonial dom.
icilc had been established and bring the
suit
1t appears that the ruling of the Utah
Supreme Court is more reasonable than
that Of Judge Morse, and what is of
more practical Importance. it establishes
the rule of law. So that in Utah the
service of summons hy publication in
divorce proceedings is legal service,
provided the matrimonial domicile of
both parties to the suit had been es-
tablished within this State.