Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-12-29

'ne amin tang ho'h"'S ny '"9 ~
ton"
BY this decree as entered ant
found in the records, it must be as
sumed that the court dismissed the
proceedings for van OF jurisdiction
While it might appear that the
court attempted to make findings or
the merits of the case, it will not be
presumed here on review that such
was in realty the intention Of the
court, inasInuch as the court by its
Judgment and decree found itself
without jurisdiction to entertain
the cause. If the court was without
jurisdiction, either by reason Of the
subject matter of the action or by
reason Of the failure of the parties to
bring themselves within that jurisdic-
ton, it will not be commended, we APP
prehend, that the court had any pow
err to determine the merits OF the &C
ton. Nor do we assume, in view OF
the form OF the judgment, that the
court in reality attempted to deter
mine the case on its merits.
In this proceeding, we are on
fronted with a situation that brings
before us again the much-discussed
divorce statute of our state.
Sec. / OF appellants complaint in
the court below sets forth:
That plaintiff resides in the city
of Reno, county of Washoe, state OF
Nevada; and that said defendant is
at the time of signing and filing of
this complaint within the jurisdiction
Ct this court and that service OF tie
summons and other process may be
upon him in Washoe county, Ne
vada."
legislature of 1915, approved Febru-
"SeS p. Divorce from the bonds
complaint under oath, to the district
court of the county in which the cause
therefor shall have accrued, o. in
which the defendant shall re-
side or be found. or in which
the plaintiff shall reside, if the
latter be either the county in which
the parties last ~cohabited, or in which
the plaintiff shall have resided six
months before suit be brought, for
the following causes:
Stat. 1915, p. 26.
The power of our Legislature to en-
act this statute, and others of similar
nature, wherein that body. represent
ing the people of the state. seeks to
regulate marriage and divorce, will
we apprehend. not be questioned. AS
was said BY Mr.. Chief Justice Talbot
in his concurrin~ opinion in the case
OF Tiedemann VS.. Tiedemann. 50
New. sol:
"Generally speaking. the marital
status of the citizen. the age of o n
sent, the name in which marriage
may be solemnized, the obligations II
imposes affecting personal or proper
ty rights, the time. condition of resi-.
dence and causes required for obtain
ing divorce. are all within the control
OF the state and subject to her laws
as enacted by the legislature"
We have here before us. then, the
policy of our state applicable to the
subject OF divorce as that policy is
framed and enacted by the legislature,
the representatives Of the people. The
courts have neither the power moi
the right to read into that statute
strike therefrom that which is there
presented. The legislature in enact
ing this statute sought to prescribe
certain jurisdictional prerequisites. In
ew of which or on the presentation
of which the District Courts Of the
state might take jurisdiction where
parties sought to secure dissolution
from the bonds of matrimony. Any
one of five conditions presented in 4
verified complaint would, as we view
this statute, be sufficient to give the
District Court jurisdiction. The Dis
trict Court might take jurisdiction;
CD If the cause of action therefor
accrued in the county; (2) If the de-
PENDANT resides in the county; CO II
the defendant may be fount IN the
county; (4) If the plaintiff reside in
the county. if such county be the n
IN which the parties last cohabited;
(5) If the plaintiff reside in the county
for a period Of six months before suit
be brought. Time OF residence is not
essential to any Of the conditions,
save and except the fifth; and in that
case a residence. of six months is a
part Of the condition.
The complaint in this action makes
the specific allegation that plaintiff
resides in the city of Reno. county OF
Washoe, state of Nevada; and further
that the defendant at the time OF
signing and hing OF the complaint
was within the jurisdiction of the
court and that service OF summons
and other process might be made
upon him in Washoe county, Nevada
The return of the sheriff shows that
the summons was personally served
upon the defendant, Frederick
Charles Merritt, within Washoe
county. The appellant in this action
sought to confer jurisdiction upon the
upon the District Court Of Washoe
county. under the third condition as
we have above enumerated them,
namely, by the allegation that the
defendant was to be found within
Washoe county and hence within the
jurisdiction of the Second Judicial
District Court.
In the cases at bar, as in all cases
OF a similar character, the important
question % determine is that Of jur-
isdiction. In determining this we