The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1906-04-25

lhi.th right Of her child was amply pro-
ltected.
The reports which were originally
iisent out regarding the supreme court
ldecision now appear to have been In
lcorrect The case in which the decis-
| ion was rendered went to the supreme
court from the state of New YORK.
| The defendant in I error, Harriet
lHaddock, a resident of the state OF
New York, began this action in New
York for separation and aliTnony against
John w. Haddock, resident of Con-
lrlecticut Defendant admitted marriage
lin 1863, but aver.ed that it was pro-
cured by fraud and set up as his de-
Tense that in 1881, in the state of Com
Inecticut, he had procured divorce,
Service in the divorce was by publica-
ltion and the mailing of copy of the
complaint TO the last known residence
of the defendant.
The judgment roll and record in the
fConnecticut case were excluded in the
New York courts and this ruling con-
Istituted grounds for writ of error.
taking the case to the United States
supreme court. 4 sstsGI a.5 1 s# NJ
|. From the published accounts it ap-
peared that the majority decision in the
IIaddock case held that all divorce de-
crees in cases where service had been
secured either by publication or person
Iaily on the party outside of the state,
were invalid. This would mean the in
validating of about three-fourths of all
North Dakota divorce decrees, and
would create chaos in families and re-
suit in endless litigation over the status
|of men and women and children and
the ownership of property. M
/ The only question that the courts had
Ito decide was "did the court below
violate the constitution OF. the United
States by refusing to give to the decree
Eof divorce rendered in the state of
,,Connecticut, the faith and credit to
(which it was entitled?" a e.rs. st
F The court holds. that the courts of
New York did not violate the provision
Iof the United States constitution re-
Touring full faith and credit to be Civ
Fen to the judgments of sister states BY,
trefusing to recognize the validity of the
IConnecticut decree of divorce. But the
court expressly disclain1s the intirnation
lof doubt as to the validity of decree
lin the state where it is rendered and
does not question the power of the state
tof New York or of any other state, to
give to such decree of divorce, with
in the borders of such states, such eff
lcacy as it may be entitled to in view of
| the policy of the state. and it further
says that it only holds that the Con-
nectictlt decree was not entitled to obi
gatory enforcement in the state of New
lYork by virtue of the full faith and
Icredit clause of the constitution.
| All divorce. DEGREES procured under
1.-THE statutes of North Dakota and which
conform ITO those statutes are as valid
| now as they were before the HaddocEl
decree. They will be recosnizedthrough
out this state. and the only way that
divorces could be affected by the de-
lcision is that their DEGREES, if. secured
/ by publication or service outside of the
state, might not be recognized in other
states, This, however, is unlikely, as
there are but three states. New York,
Massachusetts and New Jersey, that
have refused to recognize divorce de-
crees procured under the statutes of
Fsister states, so far as it affects the
marriage status. s s