Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-05-09
NEED NATIONAL Law
Uniform Divorce Statute an I'M
mediate Necessity.
ODD CASE IN VIRGINIA
New York Judge Refuses to Recognise
Old Dominion Decree.
MARRIED AND NOT MARRIED
Justice Bowling Rules That Hrs. Ran
som Is Still the Wife Of Her
First Husband.
MARRIED AND NOT MARRIED

| kH6" 1onh, may IA OeCl6iOn SndO0
yesterday by Justice Bowling in special
term, part v OF the supreme court. en-
phasizes the necessity Of a national uni
form divorce law. BY his decision the
court says that a decree of absolute d.
vorce which Eva B. Ransom obtained in
Virginia from her husband. Port ". Ran
som. son of former Surrogate Ransom.
| is "of no force or effect" against Ransom
in this state.
| Mrs Ransom, who Is q native-born vir-
| gilman. was married to Ransom in this
| city In 1880, when she was twenty years
| old. She got her Virginia decree of abso-
lutte divorce from him in 1901 and was
married to George L. Browning at the
court house. MadiseQ Va. on April "a,
1908.
Ransom recently sued his wife, who d.
| vorced him in Virginia. for an absolute
| divorce and named her second husband.
George l. Browning. correspondent. In his
suit Ransom attacked the validity of the
defendants divorce
Justice Bowling holds that not alone is
MRS. Ransom's Virginia divorce invalid
| under the laws Of this state, but that RAN
som Is entitled to a decree of absolute d.
Vorce from her because she Is living with
Browning as his wife.
/
Mrs. Ransom lis blameless for the situa
ton which has arisen." and that unless
sne ana Ransom can agree upon some ar
| rangement with respect to the custody of
tory they will remain with their mother.
who has cared for them since her sepa.
ration from the plaintiff"
Had to Leave Husband.
After their marriage Ransom and his
wire lived together n this city until May.
1913, when the court says, ''by reason of
Ransoms habits of ilfe Mrs. Ransom was
obliged to leave him. returning to her old
home in Virginia.
In October of the same year Mrs Ran
som returned at her husbands solicitation
and resumed her domicile with him. In
February, 1885, she again left him, in the
language of the court, because of her hus-
bands misconduct" and with her chill
dren took up her residence in Virginia,
IN March, 1901. Mrs. Ransom began a
suit in the circuit court Of Madison county.
Virginia, against her husband for an abso-
lutte divorce. and named as correspondent q
MRS. Casey. There was no personal serv-
ice upon Ransom Of the summons in this
suit. service being made by publication.
Ransom did not defend.
I'm the spring Of 1902" says Justice DOW
ling, after the decree bad been granted, but
before the time to intervene therein and
have the default opened had expired. Ran
som. through his attorney. procured a copy
of the decree of divorce and of the record
upon which 1t was founded from the Vir-
ginia court.
Thereafter he requested from Mrs Ran
som the return of certain Jewelry he had
theretofore given her. During all this time
he had failed to provide in any way for his
wife and their children"
The Virginia Decree.
The court says that more than four years
after Mrs. Ransom got her Virginia decree
she married in the state Of Virginia, and
that two months thereafter Ransom, "who
In the intervening time had remained quiz
escent with respect to the Virginia divorce
proceedings" commenced his suit in this
city for an absolute divorce, 'for the o.
tensfbie purpose Of having his matrimonial
status determined"
The sole question to be now determined"
says Justice Bowling, in very long de-
cision. is the force and effect, II any, to
courts Of this state. The first question Is
whether the Virginia court acquired juris-
diction Of the action in divorce. AS to the
defendant herein (Mrs. Ransom). I am Of
jurisdiction was never acquired over the
defendant Ransom) in Virginia"
Validity Not Admitted.
The court then says that Ransom was
never resident of Virginia, never was
served with process therein and did not
even voluntarily appear in the suit
while he (Ransom) had himself suggest
ed legal separation, and had been the
guilty cause of the actual separation, and
while he knew OF the granting of the de-
cree and took occasion of the knowledge to
demand hack certain presents he made his
wife," says the court, yet find no way
of determining upon the authorities that
the Virginia decree is binding upon him in
this state.
Although this state recognizes and en-
forces the jurisdiction it obtains against
non-residents by the publication of a sum
mons, 1t does not admit the validity of a
judgment in a matrimonial action obtained
against one of its citizens in another state
where there was only publication Of process
and no personal service or voluntary ap-
pearance. There has been no legislative ad-
justment Of this anomalous situation, which
has been emphasized by repeated decisions I"
Justice Bowling says in conclusion that. |
in view Of the uniform trend of decisions in
this state. Mrs Ransom's Virginia decree is
of no force and effect against Ransom here
consequently Mrs. misunderstanding is,
until Ransom's decree becomes final, still |
his wife under the laws of this state