Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1911-11-27
VERY VALUED OPINION
On Divorce Question By Prominent
GOLDFIELD ATTORNEY
Residence and NonResidence question in
Nevada Divorces Thoroughly Reviewed
and Many Cases In Both State and Unit
ed States Courts Cited BY Senator III. ".
Morehouse.


and society founded upon the home the unit Of preservation
and where father and mother realize their parental duty to their
children and know that such country safe because society
is then standing upon firm basis and civilization has center
from which to expand into moral beauty and goodness
That state has the right to prescribe its laws for the
licensing and soemnaon of marriage and for the
cedure and jurisdiction for granting divorces annung marriage
dcton in the premises power being conferred
upon Congress- under the National Constitution not be denied
That law marriage is civil contract having nothing to
do with religious faith dogma will not be denied and yet we
overlook the fact that is not like other
it than Other contracts be modified re-
cd enlarged entirely released by the parties to it, OF their
when the parties the relation which thus
created be changed by hem for when the
bities institution said by the Supreme Court of
the United States Hayward HILL 1875 s. 2lo lin the
which, purity the public deeply interested
for the foundation of the family and of society without which
there would be neither civilization, progress
We thus that all marriages there three parties
s It's a laws v " reuan marriage AND divorce the question
necessarily itself whether the laws of of the
states operate to divorce people where there has ben no
the where the marriage took place does not authorize
divorce the ground set out the libel although such ground
First South Carolina has only ground OF divorce toW
adultery The question then arises can man married IN South
here six months and be entitled to divorce ON the
ground of desertion?
Second If and married in South Carolina
and domcled there either Nevada and
carry with them the matrimonial d4me SO as to invest our
Third II does the decree of divorce effect the marital
of marriage having been resident of Nevada?
If the marriage has by the decree granted
against the nonresident who resident at any time
Nevada changed the status of the resident for six months in
Nevada from married to single person. is such person single
Fifth Now by our laws ground OF deseron must
for year Does that deserton which never
Words Nevada legsae to assertions in New
York Illinois, Therefore if person comes into Nevada re
of deserton has the court any jurisdiction to grant IT, whe
there desertion Nevada and when the law OF
Sixth Has our jurisdiction of divorce
which occurred in Nevada?
Seventh any divorces valid outside this state as
of matrimonial spouse when granted the pub
LEGATION OF a summons?
Eighth Can the defendant having beer
resident of this state confer jurisdiction upon the court
entering the suit? That is such appear
give jurisdiction to the court of the subject matter of thu
shall not undertake these questions in any
the citation Of authority the vital questions illustrating tn
dangers and illegal character Of these divorces thus granted
We all know that the many persons coming Nevada am
residing months that in here to remain
when they know they could not get decree at home Sue
side of the granting the by the Supreme Court of tn
States Andrews Andrews 1873 U s. a. and the
that such divorce is obtained in fraud OF the laws
the the parties domed and that such resdnc
Nevada for the of getting decree of divorce is not
Nevada abandon and leave the former state not
return intent in Nevada permanently, make h
their home and in business here the same as ohe
permanent residents requisite to residence her
The sxmonths statute IS not snam OF pay put c
tent permanency and honest the that which d
tngushe of other residents having thought of dvorc
There the plaintiff went from Massachusetts to Sout
for the purpose of getting divorce He remained
Dakota for the period of time fixed by the laws of Sou
Dakota brought suit After he got the decree he at
left South Dakota He therefore committed fraud against Il
laws of Massachusetts, and fact became resident
Dakota Now while the court seemingly holds the deere
good South Dakota it holds not good Massachuset
and of course would not be good elsewhere.
case Andrews Andrews aforesaid holds furthe
while the defendant appeared in the action that
acquired jurisdiction of the of the defendar
nevertheless the court said Nor there force the ugges
that the before the wife appeared, hen
Dakota had jurisdiction to decree the divOrc
The contention must the premise that the autho
y the court depended the of the parties al
its jurisdiction the subject matetha is bona iii
domce irrespective of the appearance of the parties lndee
argument the nature of the marriage contract