The Washington times., 1934-05-07
DECISION BY u. S. SUPREME COURT

decree for the alimony which had
accrued and remained unpaid at
the time Of Daniels death. The
right to recover the alimony IS
independent of the right to dover. |
It rests upon a judgment to which,
so far as appears, full faith and
credit must be given by the courts
Of the District. It Is true that,
under rules Of law generally ap-
plicable, these courts may refuse
to enforce a mere right of con-
tract If it provides for doing
within the District things pro-
hibited by its laws. Boutwell, v.
Buckbee, Mears Co., 275 U. S. 274,
278. It may, in the exercise of
the police power, prohibit the en-
joyment of persons within its Dor.
ders Of many rights acquired
elsewhere and refused to lend the
aid Of its courts to enforce them.
Home Insurance Co. v. Dick, 281
U. S. 397, 410. But when rights,
however arising, have ripened into
judgment of a court of another
State, the full faith and credit
clause applies. Fauntleroy v. Lum,
210 U. s. 230; Converse v. Hamil
ton, 224 q. S. 243, 260; Kenney v.
Supreme Lodge, 252 U. S. Ali, AIS.
And courts of the District are
bound, equally with courts of the
States, to observe the command
Of the full faith and credit clause,
wherever applicable. Bradford
Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286
U. S. las, 155. Thus, the facts
stated afford no basis in the sub
Stantive law for dismissal of the
bill so far as it seeks to recover
unpaid alimony. Whether the
fact that this claim has been pre-
sented also in the probate court
constitutes a reason for denying
relief here, was not discussed be-
low, and on this matter we ex-
press no opinion.
Fifth. It remains to consider
whether the denial of relief can
be justified on some principle of
adjective law. The Court of Ap.
peals holds that the plaintiff by
her own unlawful conduct has
placed herself without the pale
Of the law" but it does not state
specifically the ground for that
conclusion. The bar applied is
not the plea of illegality COM
monty interposed in suits brought
to enforce contracts tainted by
illegality. In those suits the il
legality relied on is inherent in
the cause of action; is directly
connected with the relief sought;
and constitutes a substantive de-
tense. Here, the relation OF the
illegality to the relief sought is
indirect and remote. The wrong
done is a thing of the past and is
collateral. BY the long line of
cases following Connolly VS.
Union Pipe Co., 1874 U. S. $40, it
is settled that illegality consti-
tutes no defense when merely
collateral to the cause of action
sued on. A "perSon does not be-
come an outlaw and lose all
rights by doing an illegal act"
National Bank & Loan Co. VS..
Petrie, 189 U. S. 423, 425. Courts
grant relief against prese
wrongs and to enforce an existing
right, although the property in
volved was acquired by some past
illegal act. Brooks VS.. Martin, 2
Wall. 10, 70, 80; Planters Bank
VS.. Union Bank, Is Wall. 483,
499, 500.
The Court of Appeals, while it
disclaimed acting on the doctrine
of clean hands, QO) declared that
Diversion VS.. Diversion, 293 Fed.
1918 decided by it in 1929 is
decisive of the case at bar. But
both the facts and the relief
sought are different in the two
cases. In the first place, the
parties in the Diversion case were
at the time of the marriage
domiciled in the District; re-
mained so when they went to
Baltimore for the marriage cere-
mony with the purpose of evading
the prohibition Of Section 966;
returned Immediately thereafter
to the District; and then lived
in the District as man and wife.
On the other hand, in the case
at bar it does not appear that
the plaintiff and Daniel were
domiciled in the District at the
time of the marriage; or that
they went to Florida in order to
evade the prohibition of Section
966; or that during their mar
riage they lived in the District;
or that they ever cohabited there
as man and wife. In the second
place, the Diversion suit was
brought by a wife for a decree OF
divorce mensa ct thoro with a
motion for alimony; and was
dismissed on the ground that the
plaintiff could not task the courts
of this jurisdiction to relieve her
Of the obligations Of a relation
which she willfully and wrong
fully assumed"
The suit at bar was brought
after termination of the marriage
by death to enforce existing
property rights growing out of
the marriage in Florida and the
decree entered in Virginia. It
was not brought to enforce any
transaction had within the Dis
trict; nor was it brought to en-
force an illegal contract: or to
further an allegal relation. Com
pare western Union VS.. Union
Pacific, 3 Fed. 423, 1918; Bate
man VS.. FargaSon, Fed. 32)
EIs,,;A,. rJone not 6avooOd khaf ifc