The National tribune., 1909-12-09

when its conclusion on the fact Is
reached 1t will. under section of
the act of Aug. Z, 1882, apply. in mar
riage cases, the law of the particular
State.
3. When two parties claim pension
thru the same alleged husband neither
of them can prevail by reason of the
untenable position of the other, but by
the lawfulness Of her own claim. 80.
S-27-'o9.
Marriage New York-Divorce-Illi-
nOis-D omicile - Decree - Jurisdic-
! diction.
| This soldier married the claimant in
New York, lived with her until 1891.
when he went to Illinois, procured there
| in 1898, on constructive service de-
cree of divorce, remarked SIX weeks
| later, and soon after returned TO New
York, where he died in 1897, both his
first and his second wife surviving and
being residents also of that State, and
both filing claims for pension as widow
! While said claims were pending the
| first was adjudged at her instance to be
| the soldiers widow by the Surrogate's
Court and also by the Supreme Court
of the County wherein he died, the sec
] ond wife being served and answering in
| both proceedings, setting up said di-
vorce and remarriage. whereupon it was
held by said degrees of the Surrogate's
Court and the Supreme Court are in
effective in said claims; that said d.
vorce and remarriage were valid, not
withstanding said DEGREES. and that said
second wife was the soldiers lawful
wife at the time of his death.
| Held: l. That under the act of Aug.
IL, 1882, the law which is determinative
of the question of widowhood in PEN
sion claim is that of the place where
the soldier resided at the time of his
death.
2. That the determinative law of such
place prescribed by said act is not the
mere administrative law of evidence or
proof of marriage, but the substantive
law of marriage of that place.
B. That the decision of a competent
court which is procured without fraud
for the purpose of securing pension will
be accepted in a pension claim as con-
elusive in its purport and effect.
T. The Surrogate's and Supreme Court
DEGREES herein were compctently rem
dered, and establish the claimants and
soldiers marriage status in that State
at the time of his death, it being the
law of New York that divorce decree
procured in another State on -constrsic-
tive service alone against defendant
of New York State is of no force or ef-
feet in New York, and does not affect
the marriage status in that State of
such defendant. SO. 5000.
Bounty-Land Warrant = Location OF
Warrant-Duplicate Warrant-Act OF
june 23, 1866.
The bounty-land warrant in question
was issued to E. W. w, widow of a
soldier of the War of 1912, under act of
March 3, 1855, and was located by NJ.
r.. assignee, Sept. 3, 1857. upon the
| SW. Il of Sec. 2, T. los N, r. Is W., at
the Faribault Land Office in Minnesota,
and certificate of location No. 645S is
=,
said warrant was stolen from said local
land office. and has never been recor-
cred or located, and patent to said land
had not issued on said location. Oct.
19, 1876, Z. ID. B., having conveyed the
land to one e. by warranty deed, claim
ing thru r., finding that title to said
tract had not been issued by the United
States, substituted cash (S206) for said
warrant per cash certificate No. 741S,
and patent issued on said certificate in
the name of the original locator of said
warrant. The heirs of said B, deceased,
filed an application for the issue to
them of duplicate of said warrant un-
der the act of June %, 1866. claiming
to have title to said stolen warrant by
reason of the purchase of said tract
under said location and subsequent sub
stitution of cash for said warrant.
Held: That by the location of said
warrant in due form by the assignee of
SaCH NdITdHl NdS lully
satisfied, and no one had a right to a
duplicate of the same, as the owner and
locator of said warrant lost no rights
by reason of the larceny of the same
from the local land office the United
States being responsible for the loss of
said warrant.
That. as under Departmental decision
in nj. H. claimants were entitled to and
had secured the refundment of the pur- |
chase money (s2e0) paid to secure a |
patent to said land. the claim was fully
satisfied. 34- 9-30-'09. -
Service-Indian Wars-Acts Of Jan. If,
1872, and April "a, 1816-Dropping.
observation-disclosures OF March |
8, 1873.
The military operations in northern
Texas between the United States and
the Comanche and other tribes of In |
dians. in which appellants wound was |
received February, 1860, were belliger- |
ent in character, and may properly be |
considered as an Indian war within the |
meaning of section of the act of |
March 8. 1873. Appellant is therefore |
entitled to renewal of pension under |
said act, payment of his pension having
been suspended by reason of his having |
aided and abetted the late rebellion |
against the authority Of the United |
States" 35. 10-14-'09.