Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-06-11
ylmportant Decisions
THE uAppocK CASE

The federal supreme court on April
Ii, 1906. handed down its opinion in
| the celebrated case Of Haddock vs..
| lIaddock. The facts in the case are as
follows: Mrs. Iaddock was a resident
OF the state of New York, and sued
| her husband for divorce in that state
| in 1899. and obtained personal service
upon him The petition charged that
| the parties had been married in New
| York in 1868. where they both resided,
and where the wife continued to reside,
and 1t WAS alleged that the husband,
| Immediately following the marriage
abondoned. the wife. and thereafter
| failed to support her. a decree OF
| separation from bed and board, ana
| for alimony was granted to the Wlle
| by the lower court III the state OF New
| York The answer filed by the husband
| in the case alleged that the husband IN
| 1891, some eleven years prior to the
date of the wfe's suit in New YORK,
had obtained in the court of the state
of Connecticut, a decree OF total al
| vorce. on the trial of the New YORK
case for partial divorce and alllnohy,
the referee who tried the case sustain
ed an objection to the introduction OF
| the Judgment role in the suit for di-
| vorce in Connecticut, on the ground
| that the court had not obtained juris-
dicton over the person OF the wife. as
the notice of the tendency of the suit
was by publication. and she
had not appeared personally IN
the action: and. second. because the
ground upon which the divorce was
granted. VIZ desertion by the wife was
| false These objections were sustained.
and. as stated above, on appeal to the
| highes, court of the state. the judg-
ment was affirmed. and a decree enter
| ed in favor of the wife for a partial di-
vorce and alimony In the sum of $3.50
| per annum from the date of the judg-
ment. The federal question raised was
| did the court below violate the con-
stitution of the United states by re-
| fusing to give to the decree of divorce,
| rendered In the state of Connecticut.
| the faith and credit to which it was
entitled. Justice White in rendering
| the opinion of the United States SUI
| preme court said Where Il personal
| Judgment has been rendered in the
| courts of the state against non-resl-
! dent merely upon constructive service,
and therefore without acquiring juris-
| diction over the person of the defend
| ant such Judgment may not be eEforc-
| ed in another state in virtue of the full
| faith and credit clause of the federal
| constitution The general rule is. more
| over, limited by the inherent power
| which all governments must possess
| over the marriage relation. it's forma :
a rflc their
| own citizens From this exception 1t
| results that where court of one state,
| conformably to the laws of such state.
has acted concerning the dissolution of
the marriage tie as a citizen of that
state, such action is binding on that
state as to such citizen, and the validity
of the judgment may not therein q. e..
in the state in which the judgment is
rendered). be questioned on the
ground that the action of the state in
dealing with its own citizens concern
ing marital relations was repugnant to
the due process clause of the constitu-
ton; and as corollary to the recog-
nzed power of a government thus to
deal with it's own citizens by decree
(which would be operative within It's
own borders, irrespective of any extra
territorial efficacy, it follows that the
right of another sovereignty exists,
under principles of comfy, to give to
decree as rendered such efficacy as
to that government may seem to he
justified by it's conceptions of duty and
public policy. In conclusion, the court
said: without questioning the power
of the state of Connecticut to enforce
within it's own borders the decree of
divorce which is here in issue, and
without ntimating doubt as to the
power of the state of New York to give
to decree of that character, rendered
in Connecticut, within the borders of
the state Of New York, and as to its
own citizens, such efficacy as 1t may be
entitled tc in view of the public policy
of that state. we hold that the decree
of the court of Connecticut, rendered
under the circumstances stated. was
not entitled to obligatory enforcement
in the state of New York by virtue of
the full faith and credit clause of the
constitution"