Court Opinion

ID: 9825670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:54:38.356252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:16.023163
License: Public Domain

Griffin Smith, C. J., (concurring). I concur in the result announced by the majority because Act No. 20 has been held to be mandatory. It is insisted by appellant that the nlea of res judicata should be sustained on the showing made of adverse judgments or decrees in foreign jurisdictions. Former adjudication is not a bar to the instant suit because Act No. 20 creates an unique legal right not available in any of the states where appellee sought and was refused relief. About all a married gentleman in Arkansas (or a nonresident who registers within our borders for sixty days) is required to do under Act No. 20 is to chase his wife from home with a baseball bat, see that she does not tarry on the driveway, then lock all doors against re-entry and stand guard at the front gate with an' ice pick. When the head of the family has disciplined his wife by ejectment and has maintained this status for thirty-six months, he may then substitute sentimental activities for sentinel duty and find surcease from travail in the arms of another taker—blond, brunette, or blended. As long as the farcical practice of permitting divorce hunters to stray into the state and make transitory contact with a lodging house just long enough to unfold a tale of woe, and then leave with a decree in less time than it takes to test a guinea pig for infection, just that long will our courts be used as weaning grounds and wailing walls for broken promises and as inspirations for new desires.