Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-12-01

In that case the parties were married
in Massachusetts, ami lived together
until the wife deserted the husband,
who afterwards mkFfH 2toH EoforAto
and there prosecuted a divorce
against the wife on grounds of deser-
ton and adultry. There the court
said:
1T is sufficient for the present
case to say that by our decisions, it
not appearing that the wife separated
from her husband for j%ustifiable cause,
her domicil folloxRdrr}st his and that,
therefore, for the Rvnposctpf divorce,
the court in Colorado had jurisdic-
ton OF both thelparties, within the
meaning Of the statute"
In the case of Keil VS.. Keil, ia N.
w. SO, the Supreme court of Ne
braska had Under consideration a
question quite similar to that at bar,
in which keil, a minister. having re-
ceived a cali from 4 church in iowa.
moved with his wife aud family to
the latter state. After living in iowa
for some months, the wife with her
children returned to the state of Ne
braska, their former residence, and
within three days after arriving in
the latter state she brought her ac-
ton for divorce; alleging that the de-
PENDANT was a NONRESIDENT. 1t was
held that the plaintiff and defendant
having established t.ae home in Iowa
with intention to- gakes ii their, future
residence. the plaintiff. the wife,
could not regain Jber.residcnce in Ne
braska to entltle her to maintain an
action for divorce until she had been
there for a period of six months.
Many authorities may be found
where, following the rule laid down
by this court in the case of Tiede-
mann VS.. Tiedemarnll supra, the, wife.
declaring her residence: TO be IN a
Jurisdiction foreign to that of her ihus-
band: has successfully maintained an
action for divoreeaeven through con-
structiye service. Indeed, many 9TH
er cases have been cited to us where
the husband. moving to another jur-
isdiction than that of the matrimonial
domicile. has taken up his residence
in the foreign domicile and there sue
cessfully prosecuted his slit stor dis
solution Of the marital relations. But
the case at bar fails within a differ
ent class from either of these mas
much as the husband, the plaintiff
here. fails to assert domicile or resi-
dence within this state. and the status
of the parties is not by any allegation
declared to be within the jurisdiction
of Our District court.
As we have. already stated, the
question of residence is M that may e,
depend upon both the acts and the
intention Of the party seeking toes
tablish the same It is a question
which involves both. the law and The
facts and may be determined by the
acts and conduct of the party and by
other matters susceptible of proof.
Hulett VS.. Hulett. 81 VT. $50.
Reeder VS.. Holcomb. los Mass, a.
Gambrill VS.. Sechdoley, 63L: r. A.
~. |2h h1h' 1~th'EI"taqG
Kennedy VS.. Ryaalf,; 81 n. Y. 37g:t
R c L. $50 '''' orc 7"5
In applying the statute of this state
relative to jurisdiction in divorce pro-
ceedings, as in applying the statutes
OF any state, the matrimonial donicile
OF n or the other of the parties to
she action. it must be borne. in mind,
IS essential to confer Jurisdiction oyer
the status of the. marital relation, The
complaint must allege that one or
the other Of the parties has a domicile
within the jurisdiction of the court
IN addition to alleging any other
facts necessary to comply with stat
utory requirements. such as residence
Or. presence within the county where
The suit is instituted. Statutes regu-
lang divorce are presumed to be en-
acted with reference to the general
law relative to the marriage relation
and are TO be construed with refer
ence to that law. Marital status toll
lows marital donicile and is indie
pendent of the corpofeal presence of
either Or both of the parties. 1t is
for this reason that the courts of one
state are without power to annul a
marital status which exists in another
state. Where neither party. to the
suit has a do1nfoile iMithin the. state
where the action isiinstituted, 1.-THE
courts of that statenate. without j,His-
diction of the subject matter of the
action. A state may empower It's
courts to dissolve the marital relation
where only one Of the parties has a
domiclle within the state, and its stat
utes may make it immaterial whether
it be the domicife of the plaintiff or
the defendant. Such. we think, is the
law Of Nevada.fe27oiE 3dI 10 y:G
The difficulty With the complaint in
the case at bar lies in the. TACT that
Tic pIdlHtlH QOtS not dlleSe residence
and hence no domici1e in this state
in himself. The allegation of resi-
dence in the defendant wife, without
the allegation of facts from which it
would follow that her. domicile Is sep
arate from that of her husband, is
insufficient. Ffom the allegations of
the complaint, ithe" matrimonial DOM
ici1e of the defendant wife. mast be
assumed to be the Same. as that of
the husband plaintiff, and that is not
alleged to. be within the jurisdiction
of the court. a..
The intention of the. party may be
established by, proof as any other
element going to the merits of the
action and as any, other fact IN the
case may be determined by, the; trial
court. h-au-a.urr. s~,.in
The order of the trial court is
, HrroaI