New-York tribune., 1906-04-18
THE DIVORCE DECISION

The rule regarding divorces handed down by
the United States Supreme Court in the case of
Haddoch aSt. Haddock may seem at first sight a
revolutionary interference with the divorce in
dustry which few states carry on for the ben
eft of matrimonial fugitives from other states
1t is. indeed. step in advance or a step back
ward. according TO the point of view of the
critic. But forward or backward it is q step
long foreshadowed by decisions more and more
nearly approaching It. 1t is only the logical
conclusion of a line of cases restricting the
power of a state to grant divorce solely TO
those marriages which were within it's iurisdic-
tion and tending to hold that the matrimonial
dOmicile. as well the domicile of one of the
parties. must be in the state in order TO confer
jurisdiction.
The HaddockS were married in New York
but the husband Immediately after the marriage
left his wife and went TO Connecticut, where he
lived for thirteen years before procuring IA di-
vOrce. while his wife continued TO live in this
state There seems TO be no doubt that he per
sOnally acquired a bona fide domicile in Con
necticut long before invoking its process. Never
theless the Supreme Court holds the divorce in
valid and sets up in effect the rule that divorce
cannot be granted by state which has jurisdic-
ton OF only one party. That ruling is held by
Justice Holmes TO be reversal of AthertOn agt.
Atherton. decided in 1900, but it is so rather in
form than spirit, and the later decision is the
outcome by gradual development of the earlier
In Atherton agt. Atherton t1S1 L. s. 1901 a
Kentucky divorce was sustained under these con-
ditions: The AthertOns We're married at the
woman's home in New York. but went immedi-
ately to live IN Kentucky. which had been and
always continued 10 be the mans home The
wife left her husband and returned to New
York. He brought suit in Kentucky for divorce
and she was served by mail and never appeared
This divorce was sustained on the ground that
Kentucky was the sole matrimonial domicile of
the two. Justice Peckham and Chief Justice
Fuller. who are both with the majority now.
then dissented and supported the New York
Court of Appeals. which had refused TO recog-
nize the divorce. AS such matrimonial domicile
as may ever have existed for the Haddocks was
in New York and the party who moved was the
one who secured the divorce, the distinction he
tween the two cases is plain.
In 1900 also. a further step was taken in Bell
agt- Bell and Streitwolf agt. Streitwolf (IS1 U.
y. l11 and 179). In both of these cases divorces
were granted er pdrte TO persons who had no
matrimonial dOmicle in the divorcing state. but
had settled there for the purpose of divorce.
leaving elsewhere their partners who did not
appear. These divorces were declared invalid
for lack of Jurisdiction. In Andrews agt. An
drews (lSS L. s.. A. argued in 1902, another
point WIS settled. In that case the husband
went 10 South Dakota for the divorce and the
wife when sued appeared by counsel and con-
sented To the decree. which subsequently in
New York she attempted TO overthrow. She sue
ceeded in invalidating a second marriage and
children by it. Justice White,
writing the opinion. held the divorce invalid be-
cause the man had no bona fide dOmice In
South Dakota. there matrimonial dom.
icile there and the mere appearance of the wife
could not confer Jurisdiction lie pointed ont
that the Bell divorce was not invalid merely
because IL was eG pGrte. When Il state had
jurisdiction over the matter of "A case it could
act er pGrfe but temporary residence of one
party for purposes of divorce did not confer
jurisdiction at all. Justice White specifically
reserved decision the question whether or
tra-territorial effect could be acquired through
bona ide domicile in the state of plaintiff
when there had been no matrimonial domicile in
th@: state
Now that reserved question is answered in
The negative by Justice White himself Matri-
monial domicile only can confer Jurisdiction.
lhat does not necessarily mean an end of
pdTte divorces, but such divorces must be rem
dered where the marital relation has actually
existed AS In the Atherton case. Trips 10 the
easy divorce courts for dissolution by consent
VIII be interfered with The decision, it is said
VIII upset many reOrganized families. which
wlli doubtless be inconyenient but perhaps use
iul as warning. IT may also promote the agi-
tauon for uniform divorce laws, though perhaps
making them. from some points of view. less
necessary. While New York and other strict