The St. Paul echo., 1926-01-23

STench attorney and be represented
abroad without stirring from home.
Where both parties are agreeable to
the divorce, the service and delegation
OF rights are rapidly accomplished.
and It may be believed that this mu-
tual consent exists in almost every
American divorce action that comes
before French tribunal.
Procedure In France.
after these preliminary steps the
French court calls for hearing to ef-
feet reconciliation If possible. Since
this Is usually out of the question,
the suit then moves on to a regular
hearing and, upon evidence deemed
sufficient by the court, a divorce can
be granted. This process Of law IL
common to all Of the Latin countries
and has strong relation to that In
Sonora, patterned upon the older
models of Europe"
But the American divorce in
France faces many problems. Let
US suppose that an American husband,
freed by the French courts, should
marry second wife in New York
and died soon afterward, leaving
children by the first wife," said Mr..
May. 1T would become possible for
them to assert that the second wife
never was legal wife and could not
inherit the husbands property when
he left no will, because the first wife
had not been legally divorced. This
issue is yet to. be decided, but will
come up before long, as many of the
persons divorced abroad have large
property interests and families by
their first marriages"
In a less degree the problems sur
rounding French and Mexican d.
vorces also apply to the DEGREES Of
other states when brought to question
in New York.
1t Is an impressive fact to the lay
man that the person divorced in one
state and married in another under
doubtful circumstances is open to no
ordinary forms Of prosecution. The
worst penalty that threatens him or
her is a second suit for divorce and
the notoriety attending such action.
Where either party has children the
possibilities become more complex.
But the only real threat Of a demand
for redress by law arises under the
New York statutes prohibiting the re-
marriage of defendants In a divorce
action.
Many May Be Worthless.
Mr.. May drew attention to the rela-
tons of state courts under the fed
eral Constitution, which lays down the
principle that the tribunals Of all
states are to give faith and credit to
the decisions of other states. That
same spirit enters into international
treaties, so that the theoretical aspect
Of divorces obtained in other states or
foreign countries is perhaps identical.
But in application every court almost
becomes law unto itself, as the
United States Supreme court said, and
the citizen Of any state divorced In
another state must always live In
some doubt about his ST. Only
IN cases where all the of
a home state have bee q
citizen of that state uI,.- e
accounted fully legal and binding.
These conclusions mean that many
thousands Of persons in New York
and the country at large bear divorces
which are likely to be held worthless
upon challenge. But relatively few Of
these doubtful divorces ever lead to
secondary actions or any other process
Of law. The practical effect is to
create state Of uncertainty affecting
the whole fabric Of law between the
states.
Neva'a still leads all other states
in the liberality of its divorce laws.
A residence of six months only is re-
Quired, but the plaintiff must reside in
a fixed place for that length Of time.
Formerly 1t was possible to break a
journey westward by a stop in Reno,
file an action there aud continue the
trip to San Francisco. At the end of
six months a plaintiff could return
and carry on the action.-New York
Times.