The Washington times., 1934-05-07

decision Of the United States Su-
preme Court in the case of Ruth
Loughran VS.. John Loughran ct
al, trustees Of the estate Of Daniel
Loughran, jr.
Mr.. Justice Brandeis delivered
the opinion Of the court.
This case is here on certiorari
to the Court Of Appeals Of the
District Of Columbia. It is a suit
in equity brought in the Supreme
Court Of the District in 1882, by
Ruth Loughran, then resident
there. The defendants are John
Loughran and others, trustees Of
real estate there located. The es-
tate of Daniel Loughran, jr., is a
beneficiary. The plaintiff alleges
that she is Daniels widow; and
she seeks to enforce as such rights
in the nature of alimony and to
recover unpaid alimony. She al.
legeS that in 1925 she married
Daniel in Florida after living
there more than two years; that
in 1927 she and her husband es-
tabliShed their domicile in Vir.
ginia; that in 1929 while they were
residing in Virginia, she obtained
a decree Of divorce from him a
mensa ct thoro, with an award of
alimony payable monthly; and
that in 1881, while she remained
Daniels wife, he died, leaving a
part of the alimony unpaid.
The trustees defend on the
ground that before her marriage
to Daniel, the plaintiff had been
married to Henry Daye; that in
1924, while she and Daye were
domiciled in the District, he had
secured there an absolute divorce
for her adultery with Daniel;
that being the guilty party, she
was by section 966 of the code
of the District prohibited from
remarrying; and that, having
married in. violation Of the stat
ute, she is not in a. position to
enforce in u court Of the Dis
trict the alleged rights in the
estate of the deceased. A copy
of the record of the Daye di-
vorce proceedings is annexed to
the answer.
On motion Of the plaintiff, the
case was heard on bill and an
swer. The trial court entered
decree for the plaintiff in re-
spect to the claim in the nature
of dover. That decree was re-
versed by the Court of Appeals
of the District. It ordered that
the cause be remanded to the
lower court for further proceed
ings not inconsistent with the
opinion, 66 F. (2d) SGT, $50, say
ing:
'It is unnecessary for us to
concern ourselves with the
legality of the Florida marriage
in that State, or with the sub
Sequent divorce proceedings in
the State Of Virginia, since the
disposition Of the case is de-
pendent entirely upon the law
of the District of Columbia.
Insofar as the law of the Dis
trict is concerned, the marriage
between plaintiff and Daniel
Loughran, jr., in Florida, if per-
formed in the District Of COlum-
bia, would be absolutely void,
and the plaintiff, being the Of
Tending party against the law
of the District, is in no posi-
ton to enforce any claim
against the estate of Daniel
LOughran, jr., growing out of
the marriage in Florida"
Disclaiming consideration OF the
doctrine of clean hands, the court
added:
"PIaintiff, by her own unlaw-
full conduct has placed herself
without the pale of the law.
and cannot be heard in a court
of equity to take advantage Of
her own wrong"
The trustees insist that the bill
was properly dismissed because
the plaintiff. retaining her doml-
cile in the District, went to Florida
and married there in order to
evade the prohibition of Sec. 966.
The plaintiff contends that the
admitted facts constitute no de-
fence; that because the marriage
was legal in Florida, it's legality
should under the established doc
trines governing conflict of laws,
have been recognized by the
courts of the District; and, more
over. that this was required by
the full faith and credit clause.
First. Marriages not poly g a.
nous or inceStuous, or otherwise
declared void by statute, will, II
valid by the law OF the State
where entered into. be recognized
as valid in every other jurisdlc-
ton. Meister VS.. More, 96 U. S. ~;
Travers VS.. Reinhardt, 2O5 U. S.
423. .440. The mere statutory pro-
hibition by the State Of the dom
icile either generally OF the re-
marriage of a divorced person. or
of remarriage within prescribed
period after the entry of the de-
cree is given only territorial et-
feet. Such statute does not in.
calidate a marriage solemnnized
IN another State in conformity
with the laws thereof. (Vernier,
American Family Laws, P. 80, 45,
90. Compare the American Law
Institute, ReStatement Of Conflict
of Laws, final draft No. 4, PIP. 49,
95. Commonwealth VS.. Lane; 113
Mass. 458; Dudley VS.. Dudley, Isl
Iowa, 147; In re Miller's estate 239
Mich. 455.
Second: We have no occasion
to decide what would be the
.lL - 49, ,oo~+ia. If II on