Court Opinion

ID: 9683906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:40:02.399251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:51.222388
License: Public Domain

Griffin Smith, Chief Justice, concurring and dissenting. I would admit the Chancery Court’s right to judicially fumigate its records. Judge Garratt was the innocent agency through which a contemptible fraud was perpetrated, but he is in no sense at fault. The original record upon which action, was taken justified the decree. Trouble was that it was a fabrication of misrepresentation, presented to the Court by one whom we had licensed to practice law. The majority opinion, though replete with directions, neither affirms nor reverses. Why sentence the Chancellor to inaction when his conscientious aim was to cleanse the docket and treat the transaction as though the decree had not been rendered? We say there is no jurisdiction because relief in respect of affirmative action must be denied Mrs. Oberstein; yet we recognize jurisdiction in saying what must be done. Our jurisdiction conies through appeal, yet we say the lower Court was judicially nebulous. The Chancellor might at least be permitted to show what he did, and it is of no great importance whether, after becoming informed, he acted on his own motion or at the request of a litigant. We have assumed jurisdiction for the purpose of saying that the decree was fraudulently procured, but that the iniquity shocks our consciences to such an extent that ive are relegated to long-distance observations and advice. I am not certain that Mrs. Oberstein’s information regarding the requirements for continuous residence in Arkansas dining the incubation period was such that she should be denied action on the petition for avoidance. There was an element of coercion. This polygamouslv-inclined husband concocted the entire scheme and matured it through, his lawyer. The threat was that if Mrs. Oberstein did not comply, her material resources would be cut off.