White Pine news weekly mining review. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1910-1920, 1910-12-04
PECULIAR CASE
OVER DIVORCE
PANIC CREATED AMONG THOSE
WHO HAVE SECURED DECREE
IN NEVADA OVER DECISION OF
NEW YORK JUDGE.

Inc recent decision OF Justice
Whitney in New York affecting a Ne
vada divorce decree has stirred up a
lot of loose talk and has created
something of a panic among those
who fear they will come under the
The immediate effect has been to
cause greater care in getting of SER
vice on the defendant In Nevada
cases, and in many cases the defen-
dant now appears either in person,
by attorney, or submits an answer
bringing him fully within the juris-
diction of the court to the same effect
as the plaintiff. 1t has also the effect
of making the seeker for divorce
more careful in establishing actual
residence in this state. Such results
are good but so far as the other eff
fects of the decision it would appear
that there is a ,ot of misconception
and unnecessary excitement pro-
duced.
The case decided by Justice Whit
ney was not exactly a representative
case. 1t appears that the wife OBJ
tanned a divorce in Reno with an
order for the custody of the children,
who were in New York at the time
in the custody of the husband. The
service of summons was by publica-
ton of the same, and the husband at
NO time UaE hFnuohf hnfnra tho nnnrt
here subject to any order to do
equity.
When the wife got to New York
she started habeas corpus proceedings
to get her children from her husband.
The New York courts were logically
put under the need of defending a
citizen of New York in his rights
under the laws of New York. The
wife was the aggressor and the court
her relief.
In considering the case the court
that under certain circum-
the courts of New York
recognize a foreign decree
under the principles of comfy be-
tween states. Indeed, so far as is
known, IL a New FORK court took ii
into its head to so recognize a decree
1t Is doubtful If the act could be over
II is only when a party at
to force a New York court TO
recognize a decree on the due faith
and credit clause, hal the supreme
court of the United States says no.,
or has said no.
In Its excursion into the merits of
the case tried in Nevada the court
probably entered on it's own volition.
Certainly no court in New York can
presume to overturn a decree of a
Nevada court in Nevada. But the
in it's Investigations found hat
there was fraud in Nevada, and this
operated as a further disability
against the application in the New
York habeas corpus proceedings.
1t is difficult to conceive how a
party could appear before a New
York court under more ~unfavorable
unrepresentative circumstances.
That was the first point In the mat
ter. The other was that the defend
was never before the Nevada
court subject to its orders.
One of the big scares In these
cases is the statement often made
that should a diyorce-one of these
one-sided divorces-be obtained in
Nevada and that the plaintiff here
should subsequently marry, say in
Nevada and remove later into the
hostile state of New York, that the
marriage would be declared invalid,
that me children of hat marriage
could be declared illegitimate and
that the decent from such marriage
could be impaired and jeopardized.
But this must be understood-that a
legal marriage in Nevada is a legal
marriage everywhere. That legiti-
macy results from birth TO parties in
lawful w,dlock and that descent of
estates is based on legitimacy.
1t is true that there is an anomaly
in New York. We have the condition
where A may claim to be the legal
husband of 9, while being unable to
prove thai c is the illegal husband
of b. This anomaly must be solved
some time or other for the good of
society. 1t will no doubt be solved
by legislation in the state of New
York before long, but ii is a matter
of extreme doubt if the legislation
based on judicial precedent which
has been recently enacted in New
York in the courts will stand or be a
CnrinuG mnnopa for lam