Document: 342 U.S. 126 72 S.Ct. 157 96 L.Ed. 146 COOKv.COOK. No. 30. Argued Nov. 7, 1951. Decided Dec. 3, Mr. Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. H. Mason Welch, respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Shortly after petitioner and respondent were married on February 5, 1943, discovered that was lawful wife one Mann. At time living in Virginia agreed would go to Florida obtain there a divorce from Mann, so they could be remarried. That course followed, paying part expenses trip action. Petitioner received decree few weeks later, December 18, again Marital difficulties developed secured Hawaii separation maintenance. Thereafter brought present action Vermont courts have marriages declared null void. served by publication appeared. There trial, which Windsor County Court granted judgment annulment. It found under law it necessary had an intention live remain Florida, she did not have; testified falsely proceedings respecting her domicile Florida; deceiving court as domicile. The annulled marriage dismissed petition respects second marriage. Supreme affirmed annulling first but reversed dismissal held also 116 Vt. 374, 76 A.2d 593. case is here certiorari. 341 914, 71 732, 95 1350. 2 On this record we do know what happened except entered favor against So far know, Mann party proceedings. issue contested, litigated resolved petitioner's favor. If defendant spouse appeared contested wife's domicile, Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 343, 68 1087, 1097, 92 1429, or admitted Coe Coe, 378, 1094, 1451, personally state, Johnson Muelberger, 340 581, 587, 474, 477, 552, he barred attacking collaterally; stranger proceedings, such respondent, unless applies less strict rule res judicata husband than does first. See supra. other hand, if neither nor been court, ruling Williams State North Carolina, 325 226, 65 1092, 89 1577, reopen 3 But burden undermining sister state 'rests heavily upon assailant.' supra, at page 234, 1097; Esenwein Commonwealth Pa. ex rel. Esenwein, 279, 280—281, 1118, 1119, 1608. A presumes jurisdiction over subject matter persons. Titus Wallick, 306 282, 287, 59 557, 560, 83 653. As stated Stone Adam Saenger, 303 59, 62, 58 454, 456, 82 649, 'If appears its face general jurisdiction, cause parties presumed disproved extrinsic evidence, itself.' 4 entitled presumption. presumption may overcome showing, example, never made appearance either generally specially contest jurisdictional issues. recognized no findings those issues record. referring said, 'It question bona fide open attack, notwithstanding full faith credit clause when with process state. show these criteria.' 593, 595. Yet essential transpired before collateral attack can resolved. For until Florida's shown vulnerable, relitigate rests. said argument proceeding. contain any stipulation concerning it. 5 We deal only presumption, findings. reverse question, discussed argument, whether now position collaterally collusive participated fraud. 6 remanded inconsistent opinion. 7 Reversed. 8 BURTON concurs result. 9 FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 10 Concededly, September 10, purported grant petitioner, then Mrs. Albert 'by facts domicile' 'went express purpose getting divorce' without 'intention Florida,' whence departed immediately securing decree. Therefore, Full Faith Credit Clause, art. 4, § 1, require respect decree, has fair doubt Mann's subjected himself things imports undermined 11 view my Brethren nullity, although 'recognized record'—the being, 'was (or) case.' 'recognized' I join Brethren. read wrote misread. In own way, just opposite. Referring case, went on: Cook Cook, 12 light whole record, meaning this, however obliquely expressed, circumstance wanting alone given suit, namely, submission it? reading implies consented circumstances, formalism most arid kind third-party proceeding deny parte fraudulently makes formal fraudulent obtained participation husband. 13 submit, doctrine, State's power terminate divorce, divorce. sham more binding private letter lady local judge. And while could, chose, relief because his 'unclean hands,' Constitution United States nothing defense. 14 important remember throughout represented counsel. based 'a consideration statements counsel, oral testimony exhibits are inescapable cooked-up affair between Cook. 'Florida chosen place where nearest best secure divorce.' All took two months supposedly married, begun December, 1949, come March, 1950, fact May, disposed November 1950. urged defense prayer declaration annulment grounds, reads grounds only: unclean hands condonation—unclean cooperated falsity domiciliary claim; condonation conduct Cook's subsequent to, knowledge of, 15 judgments came years Court's decisions 1451. These puss-in-the-corner adjudications. inconceivable claim divorcing irrelevant enforceability contests consents leading When 1950 finds says process, rejects must respected reason condonation, plainly assumption situation. An established assumptions litigation truly though put into words. 16 discloses—the explicit prearranged putative husband, tendered disillusioned third party, charges sought rely thus their disposition Coe—to hold finding words appear back days antedating Baron Parke, certain indispensable. Not use them fatal. set forth us. all recite non-appearance yet unwarranted suit. 17 goes Vermont. surprising if, follow, will formally inasmuch obedience am who think procedure folderol noxious moss. Procedure—the fair, orderly deliberative method claims litigated—goes very substance law. lies surface simply ineptly conveyed revert archaisms essentials.

Category: 10