The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1908-04-09
SNEAK DIVORCES.
IndIEnlhsd Courts and Ignorant LIugants
COnNiemned.

To TIE Editor OF THE SrS-Sir' Some
figures recently compiled by the Bureau NJ
vital Statistics OF South Dakota illustrate IN
a striking manner the divorce evil In some
Of our Western states snd deserve seriou,
consideration, IL appears that in the yea
1907 the divorce mill netted for South ps-
kotI upward OF s4s0, 900 derived from the
issuance OF 522 divorces, Of which $50 were
to persons not bona fde residents NJ he
state, This sum would pay the salaries of
all Of The executive and judicial officers of
South Dakota for n period Of ten wears u
is estimated that in ten wears the state Of
South Dakota has taken in q. OOO, 900 in divorce
receipts.
The amount Of perjury, domestic r~estlrs'-
ness and the low professional and judlciIl
standaNls that these figures indicate 81,
appalling. Il seems incredible that roside0.
Of this state should continue Ia seek -"-
called South Dakota divorces after tho pos
tive. reiterated and specific declarations N
or Court Of Appeals and the United states
Supreme Court, In 1918 Chief Justice Thou p
son stated the true principle in the case NJ
Borden VS.. Fitch, Is Johns. l?l:
Il must, then, he taken. I think. as the settled
law OF this state, that a Judgment obuined In .
sister state against a person not being within Tive
Jurisdiction Of the court. nor having been served
with process TO appear. nor having appeared 10
defend the suit, will be absolutely void. This
principle must apply equally to a divorce as 10
any other Judgment,
This principle was reaHirmed in the case
NJ Bradshaw W. Heath. ~ Wend. 4O7. and
both AZ the foregoing cases we're cited anil
approved in The case Of People VS.. Baker.
70 y. \. Is. ~. Since 1870. therefore. il his
been the settled Ia" OF this Sta.e that a cnur'
Of another state cannot dissolve he matri-
mortal relations Of q citizen Of New York.
dOmiciled IN New York. unless no was actual"
served with process within the other state
OF voluntarily appeared In the cause. The
last veStige OF doubt was removed by NJ"
decision Of Chief Judge Andrews in the case
Of Jones vs., Jones, l0S y, y. 4lj. 42i, when
he said.
The processes Of courts run only within the luri,
dlctlon which issues them. They cannot be Sen0l
without the Jurisdiction, and courts OF one Sia'r
cannot acquire luTsdlcllon over the citizens NJ
another State under ,''tutes which authorize a
substituted service Or which provide for ac'n'I
authorize a Judgment IN RsIsondm against M
party proceeded against. This aue, ton has p
Gently been considered in several cases In Ms
state with a fllneSs OF argument and Illustration
which leaves nothing 20 be said and II is s%uTlocr'
TO refer 10 The decisions. . . The contract
OF ma ria ge cannot BE- annulled nv judicial sanction
any more lh1n any other contract intrr pI"ff
without Jurisdiction OF the person OF the defendarf.
Tue marriage relation l. not a res within the Srs'r
" nv PaAAN lhNbhlNh ~ luIsulfAlOu y n NV.
70 dissolve II, 50 as 70 authorize the court n bind
.ne absent parry q citizen OF another jurisdiction,
BY substituted service Or actual notice Of thr pro
ceeding given without the jurisdiction Of the cour,
where the proceeding Is pending.
In accordance with this principle. the cour's
oil New York have invariably refused 10 irp0r
a divorce rendered in another State a%Galu,n
4 resident as entitled IA. be enforced IN New
York by virtue OF the full faith and cred
clause OF the Constitution Of the nitei
states Their stand has been SUSTAINED and
justified bythe decisions OF the United states
Supreme Court in the cases Of Atheron 's
AtheTtop, ISL T.. s. 1855. and Haddock v'
Haddock. 2i U. .. 562.
We have recently had n reiteration Of the
same principle carried out TO its logical con
Clusion ip the case Of Olmsted VS.. Olmsted.
decided by the Court Of Appeals on Januar.
4 lSOs' put not yet reported in the Official
series, In that case IA resident Of thls
children. He then left his family and went
to New Jersey, where he lived with another
woman, G., by whom he had two illegitima'r
sons, lie then removed 10 Michigan, brought
who was still living in the State OF New Nor..
and procured q decree annuling the mar
1Hge upon the ground that his wife, r, had
deserted MIN, without personal service agalnst
menCement OF the action. Subsequently hs
married G, the mother Of his two ilegitimale
IONS. II was held that the decree Of divorce
Sesn 4 and WAS absolutely invalid and
hNhf. wv HhANcNlutlN Alul
between, 4 and G did not legitimize As two
sons and that therefore they could not take
under a Will executed in this state, giving
pc remainder to As lawful issue. Judge
haiEht, writing for the court. says:
IL IL, however, urged that although the Michigan
lecTee may be Invalid and OF no force or eftcl,
wi me llegilmAte children became egltlmai
lndeL that decree. and therefore our courts are
pound 10 recognize them a. legitimate. We csn'
lot approve OF the soundness OF such a contention.
" have already stated, the statute was designed
my iorsuch persons a. were free from legal obNta.
yes preventing their marriage, and II consequent
ollows that N the divorce was void, then Irgl
did exist 70 the marriage OF these pei
ons; for Olmsied (l had another wife living from
ne had no valid divorce, and his marriage
lndeL such circumstances waG Dolygamous. and
hd the ceremony been performed IN this state
tally.
In view Of the foregoipg, II IL difficult 10
zee how any reputable Judge can continue
o sign such DEGREES, and his continued oon'
iuct IN doing so would seem to indicate the
borough DEGRADATION Of some OF our WesteIn
'ourtS where matrimonial actions are con-
the p~ettifogging standard OF a larFo
'ortlon OF the legal profession, and the Grass
ignorance OF the litiRants who continue 10
70 satisfied With these rump DEGREES,
INV YoRK, April s.