The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-11-22
IS DIRECTED TO
GRANT A DIVORCE
Peremptory Writ of Mandate Is
Issued by Supreme Court
Against Morse.
OPINION REGARDED As
OF VITAL IMPORTANCE
Settles Question in Utah Re-
garding Divorce Summons
by Publication.

The Supreme Court issued perempt-
DRY writ OF mandate Tuesday, direct
ing Judge Charles W. Morse of the
Third District court 10 grant a decree
Of divorce to Emma K; Aldrach from!
William F. Aldrach. The opinion Of
the Supreme Court is regarded as be-
ing one of vital Importance, in that 1t
settles the law, so far as Utah is con.
cerned. regarding the granting Of di-
vorces where one of the parties is a
nonresident of the State, and the serv~
ice Of summons is by publication.
In effect, the court holds that where
O marriage is consummated in Utah.
or is consummated elsewhere and is
maintained or established here, service
by publication, or constructive sum-
mons" is valid The court, in its
opinion, distinctly refused TO pass on
the question of whether or not an ac-
tion for divorce may be maintained
here when only one of the parties has
ever been In the State.
Judge Morse Refused Decree.
Judge Morse refused a decree to Mrs.
Aldrach on the ground that her hus-
band had been served by publication,
had made no appearance in the case,
and was living outside the State. The
parties were married In Utah He
found as a fact that, on her showing,
she was entitled to divorce. but held
that, under recent decision OF the
United States Supreme Court. he was
Wlthout jurisdiction to grant her relief.
The decision in question was In the
case of Haddock VS. Haddock
The opinion of the Supreme Court
holds that the opinion in the Haddock
case is not susceptible of the inter
pretation placed upon it by Judge
Morse. On this point the court says:
AS We read that case. the one essential TO
confer Jurisdiction upon a State court IN di-
vorce proceedings Is what is denominatcd in
that case "domlcle of motrimony." and
that such must be within the State where
the action is planted and be with the party
bringing the action. II such a domicle cI-
to sever the marital relations upon con-
structive service in cases where statutory
residence and a cause for divorce co exist
The Supreme Court opinion goes on
TO hold that the abandonment OF the
wife by the husband does not effect
the domlcile of matrimony, and that
1t is the donicile of matrimony that
confers jurisdiction upon the State
courts to dissolve marriage for a
proper cause.
Conditions for Divorce.
The opinion says that the opinion of |
the United States Supreme Court de, !
fines the following conditions under !
which, for proper cause, divorces may |
be granted:
l. In cases like the Aldrach case where
the parties are residents OF the State at the
time OF the marriage. and thus establish
domicile OF matrimony in the State. and the
complaining party continues the domlcile up
to the commencement OF the action,
=. In all cases where the parties are mar
ried out OF the State but come 10 reside
in the State afterward and recognize the
marriage within the State, thus establishing
domicile OF matrimouy therein. and the
party bringing the action continues the domi-
Gle UP 10 the time OF commencing it,
g. In all cnses where statutory cause and
residence co-exist
The court holds that in the Aldrach
case, the domicile having been estab-
hshed here, the court must grant the
divorce, and issues a perennptorv writ
of mandate to that effect. II declines
TO pass upon the right of a resident to
maintain suit against the other party
TO marriage when that party has
never been resident of the State and
when the domicile has never been es.
tablisbed in Utah. That point was not
raised in the Aldrach case, because the
domicile of the Aldrach marriage had
been created here
The opinion in the case was written
by Justice Frlck and concurred in by
Chief Justice McCarty and Justice
Stranp. 1t is relief to many persons
who have secured divorces here, or
who contemplate bringing them here.
and who feared that they were unable
10 do so because the only service they
could secure upon the husband or wife.
as the case might be, was by publca-
tion.
Will Give Broad Construction.
Judge Morse said YESTERDAY after
noon that. in view of the opinion of
tho Supreme Court, be would grant
divorces in cases where constructive
service OF summons was had, not only
in cases where the domicile of the mar
rlage had been established, but where
it had not been. so long as the apply
ing party bad good cause of action
and was resident of the State.
Judge Morse expressed himself as
disagreeing with the Supreme Court
on the Importance of the question of
and declared that in his opin-
ion, the ony question to be determined
In view of the Haddock decision. was
whether or not publication Of summons
was sufficient in any case The Su
preme Court having held that such ser.
vice is valid, he declared, he would
grant divorces regardless of whether
or not the domicilc had ever been es.
Ia blished here.
Attorney s, p, Armstrong represent
ed Mrs. Adrach in her successful suit
and Dey Hoppaugh and s. II. Thur
man represented Judge Morse bv an.
polntment OF the court