Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1906-07-11

sary to jurisdiction. The result has
been that in a great number of in
stances the status of a person who
has obtained a divorce OF this kind and
then married again is in some states.
that of a person lawfully divorced ana
lawfully remarked. but. IN other
states, that OF bigamist, whose d.
vorce was a fraud. and whose second
marriage is a crime. The compiled
tons and perp,exities thus arising ex-
tended not only to the parties to the
divorce, but to their children, and to
the children of later marriages which
they might contract. Such has been
the chaos existing in the law of this
most sacred of human relations.
For the first time the court of final
authority has now passed upon the
fundamental question whether or not
divorce obtained against nonresi
dent, who was not personally served
and did not appear, is entitled to be
held valid outside the state In each
of the previous cases which have
come before that court in which the
question was presented, the court has
found some way of deciding the case
without directly disposing of this
yexed and perplexing question. But in
its present decision the court clearly
adopts the New York rule, which has
been hitherto repudiated in many
states. While the decision is made by
bare majority of one. it definitely
settles the law for all Jurisdictions In
this country, both state and Federal,
to this extent, namely, that the full
faith and-credit clause of the Federal
Constitution does not give such a di-
vorce any validity to determine the
status of the parties outside the state
in which it was rendered. On the
other hand, the courts of other states
are still at liberty, under the constitu.
ton, to give to such a divorce full
force and effect of they choose. The
decision goes TO farther than to relieve
them from any constitutional obliga
ton to treat it as valid.
When the effect of such a divorce is
in the state where it is rendered. If the
| court had no jurisdiction to render a
decree that would be valid outside the
state, is question that may still be
contested, though the majority of the
court in the present case, while deny.
ing its binding effect outside the state
assumes that it is valid within the
state where it is rendered, Neverthe
less, on that point the expression oil
| the court cannot have the full force OIL
/ a decision, as the point was not at is
sue in the case. Just how a court can
have jurisdiction to render a decree
valid within the state, and not have
jurisdiction to make a decree that will
be valid outside the state, is not easily
understood. The majority opinion
while repudiating the theory that the
! marriage status is a res, nevertheless
seems to concede that the court of the
state has jurisdiction to determine the
status of its own citizen. This seems
very much like stating the res theory
( in different words. The dissenting
/ judges find it impossible to see how
the decree can be conclusive in one
state without being conclusive "a al
| the states, and the verv able opinion
of Mr.. Justice White does not make
! this point clear. But whatever is sale
! on this question must be deemed to be
! conceded only for the purposes o.
| this case, and cannot be, in the strlc'
sense, binding when, if ever, that ques
ton is expressly presented to the
court for decision
The anomalies, perplexities, and in
extricable tangles of family relations
as affected by divorces against non
residents without personal service may
cision, but it is impossible to say how
far this will be the result. The "di
vorce industry" of certain states
which, by lax laws, have invited di
vorce business from other states vii
probably languish, and no doubt the
number of these discredited divorce!
will be much reduced But it is still
possible for states that wish to do 81
to provide for divorce DEGREES of thi!
kind, and, at least so far as the presen
! decision goes, give them full validity
in the jurisdiction where they are rem
dered. 1t is also possible for othe
states, if they wish, to recognize then
as valid; and it is by no means i'm
probable that DEGREES of this kind will
still be rendered in many states, ant
upheld by exercise Of comfy in man.
other states. 1t will still be true tina
divorce may be valid in some state
and void in others; that persons law
fully married in one state are held Il
be living in unlawful relations in othe
! states; that children legitimate in on
state are il1egitimate in others. Thi
unfortunate and disgraceful condition
of affairs is not cured, but only les
sened in extent, by the present de
cision. There is one remedy tina
would be effective, and that is for TIL
court ~ last resort to decide, as tn