The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-18
DIVORCE RULING NO SURPRISE
COMMENT OF LAWYERS HERE ON
TIE PADDOCK DECISION.

Repeats. They Say, What United states Su.
preme Court Has Held IN Earlier
Cases-At Most. DEGREES Are Only Void
able and In Few Cases Are Attacked
So far from being revolutionary, as some
persons had characterized it, lawyers and
iurists said yesterday. almost unanimously,
that the Handbook decision rendered by
the United States Supreme Court on Mon
day was merely an amplihed repetition
Of several previous decisions In similar
cases.
As one lawyer explained it. the whole
trouble seems to be the difficulty existing
in many lay minds Of differentiating be-
tween the physical residence and the marital
domicile of the parties to a divorce, suit.
Where there is marital domicile in any
| State there is no question Of the power
of the courts of that State to grant a
divorce. other statutory conditions being
fulfilled, even though the defendants
physical residence may be in another State
And such a decree is and has always been
recognized by the I nited States Supreme
Court.
In any event, the statutory provisions
Of the State granting the decree having
been fulfilled, its decree ia valid in the
state itself, even though invalid elsewhere
For instance, the decree which John w.
Handbook got in Connecticut In 1881 is still
valid there, even though the United States
Supreme Court upholds the contention OF
Mrs. Haddock as affirmed by the Court
Of Appeals in this State that the Conneotl-
cut decree il void.
Another point to which lawyers drew
attention was that the sole effect OF the
Federal decisi on il to declare certain de-
crees of divorce voidable. This does not
make them void. Only on the application
of the defendant in the voidable decree
will it become void.
As a matter OF fact many il not most
of these voidable divorces we're obtained
with the consent OF the defendant, who
has, like the plaintiff, in many cases, re-
married. In such cases the defendant
would only convict him or herself OF bigamy
by attacking the voidable decree.
This argument also proves the ia lsity
OF assertions that SOM 10000 children
have been made i~llegltimate by the decision,
Until the decree of divorce under which
the plaintiff has remarked is pronounced
void these children are as Legitimate as
those of persons who have never been
divorced.
1T is true" said a lawyer whose chief
practice ia divorce suits. that in the event
Of the deaf h of the plaintiff in such a void
able d ecree complications might arise by
the widow attacking the decree later, or
the legality Of tbs d vorce might be at
tackled by collateral heirs. But that raises
other questions which will have to be de-
into the consideration OF the case pre-
sented to the Supreme Court at Washington
"A careful study of the majority opinion
in full may reveal some new points for the
guidance of lawyers and litigants in similar
cases. but Judging by the extracts in this
mornings papers, the court has merely
followed out its previous decisions in the
cases OF Atherton VS.. Atherton, Andrews
vs.. Andrews, Bell vs.. Bell, Streitwolf vs..
Streitwolf and numerous others. II Is
only that in the HaddooIs case, perhaps,
the line was drawn more narrowly than
heretofore as against the person holding
the voidable decree.
1T is all a question Of marital domioile,
for il is the marital relation that is the
subject matter OF divorce litigation;
In the Atherton case the couple lived as
husband and wife for years in Kentucky.
Mrs. Atherton left the State and came
here. Then Atherton got a divorce In
Kentucky on the ground of abandonment.
Mrs. Atherton also sued here, and asked Tor
a separation on the ground OF desertion.
THE Court of Appeals Of this State ruled
that Atherton's Kentucky divorce was no
good here, because she had not been per-
sonally served within the jurisdiction OF
the Kentucky courts. And then the courts
here granted Mrs. Atherton a separation.
"The United States Supreme Court re-
versed our Court of Appeals. The reason
ing was simple enough. There was no
question that the marital domicile of both
parties was Kentucky, hence the New York
courts could not acquire jurisdiction.
Now in the Haddock case the conditions
we're reversed. Haddock left his acknowl-
edged marital domicile. New York, to go
to Connecticut to get a divorce for
aba ndonment, and he did, after Mrs. Had
dock had been notified of the action he
had begun. Service was effected on her
BY mail and publication. Then Haddock
remarked. A little later Mrs. Haddock
sued for a separation here, on the ground
of desertion. and got it, with alimony.
"Haddock offered his Connecticut decree
as n bar to her action, and the Court of
Appeals, relying mainly on the Atherton
decision. declared his divorce as invalid
in this State, and therefore not binding on
Mrs. Haddock,
The Haddock decision has merely cleared
the air and laid do wn in an authoritative
manner what the rule shall be In interstate
divorces, il one may call them such. The
Dakota variety is neither better nor worse
than it was before. Dakota divorces, of
the usual kind, are valid in Dakota, doubt
less. But they are valid nowhere else"
|