Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1911-11-27

at the outset The principle dominating subject the
with public policy that the
the domicie The proposition relied UPON maintained would
involve this without the
statute South Dakota and in any domicie in that
essential jurisdiction the of such state
render decree Of divorce which would have extra territorial
effect and the Of or both of the parties could
suffice confer jurisdiction the subject matter where
held that there violation of the due faith
credit clause of the National Constitution in the courts of
Massachusetts III refusing TO recognize the decree OF divorce as
binding elsewhere than i'll South Dakota
This written by the Chief Justice of the
supreme Court of the United States while dis
senng opinions nevertheless stands the solemn Judgment
of the highest of this nation.
This the question, what is matrimonial domlcile
and question answered in Iaddock Haddoc POI T.
562 Where the domcle OF matmon was
in particular state husband abandons his wife and
into another order avoid his marital obligations, such
in the nature things domce of mamony, and
treated the actual constructive domce
of the e place where the wife domicied when
abandoned constitutes her legal domice until new actual
follow that there cannot be matrimonial domle acquired
Nevada of the to this state for the purpose
of getting divorce matrimonial domice be acquired
here at all when the parties separated for @
for and or the spouSeS only
Therefore marriage being mutual both parties
exist III Nevada, under such circumstances For
the status of marriage both parties must be
residents only resident of Nevada
the divided the here brings his part OF the status
with him. and the other keeps her status the dom
c where she resides That status therefore, the basis OF
sdcton the court and court only have oneha OF
that status before either by publication OF summons or the
pearance of the defendant for the appearance OF the
as cannot the very mature a o. g m m1er
any lived husband and wife in Nevada to be husband
and wife Nevada they must live and cohabt such IN
There be a matrimonial domicie here.
But divorce proceeding in REM as well
as and that by the publication OF summons or per-
sona appearance acquires jurisdiction of the and
of the person That certain but not IN the case
where there been matrimonial domici In Nevada
If man and woman ntermarred in Nevada and lived and
cohabed husband and wife they intermarried
and wife, then the status of marriage the res would
be fully completely in Nevada and when of the parties
tiutip of
aerward leave the state the publication OF the summons or per
ona appearance would west tine o W n.da M Of b
matrimonial domcle In such the res would be within
jurisdiction of the court But where the spouses never et
in Nevada and they domcled this state thu
res never this state for as said 1addock VS.
addock heretofore referred Supreme Court of the United
aes says urged that the suit for divorce was proceed
ing in rem therefore the Connecticut court had complete
jurisdiction decree to the res entitled to be en-
forced York But here again the argument contradictory
1t upon theory that jurisdiction in Connecticut depend
the decree resting upon the domce of the parties alone
jurisdiction Connecticut the subject matter of controversy
But putting this contradiction aside what may we ask was tn
Connecticut Certainly can not reason be SAID ina
plaintiff within the jurisdiction The only possible theory then
upo which proposition proceeds must be that the res
nnnecticut from which uc assumed to have arisen
was the marriage relation But the marriage was celebrated
under hypothesis stated that before the husband deserted IN
New York the res was in New York and not IN oG f
in New York. established matrimonial domicle IN Cof
relation from which he fled Connecticut Concedng, howsve
that he took with Connecticut much of the marital
aon as his individual status cannot be said tbs
he did not New York much Of the relation perane
to the status wife From point of view then undo
the marriage relation be treated
the res dvisbe and therefore there
the of New York and the state OF Connection
Thus considered that the of state did nj
ii extend to affecting the thing situated in another state Nor
which have stated met by tt
suggestion that the res was nvsbe and therefore, who'll
in Connecticut wholly in New York. for this amounts b.
TO saving that thing be at and the tin
in different places The then finally decides that the
cree Of thus rendered Connecticut not bndr
of New York the wife, resident
upheld the New York courts granting the
action brought by her against her husband in New Yor
the Connecticut Decree amoI
the of $4,000 per the ground that the vii
decree divorced and still his viii
in this nation has held
divorce DEGREES being rendered Nevada, where
matrimonial domce here OF no effect outside
in state and in fact being divorce at ALL