ROTH
v.
EHMAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Madelaine Roth appealed an Illinois Supreme Court decision that upheld a Württemberg marriage annulment decree, which resulted in her being denied dower rights and inheritance as a widow. The U.S. Supreme Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the case because no federal right, treaty, or constitutional question was involved, only a matter of state law concerning the recognition of a foreign court's decree.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question in this' case controverted below was whether Madelaine Roth, the plaintiff in error, was the widow of John .George Roth, deceased, and that depended entirely on the validity of the decree of the Royal Matrimonial Court of Elwangen, in the Kingdom of Wurtemburg, annulling the marriage of the parties. The Supreme Court of Illinois decided in favor of the validity of the Wurtemburg decree, and consequently that she was not his widow and' not. entitled to dower in his estate, or to inheritance under the laws of Illinois. This presents no question of which we can take cognizance under sect. 709 of the Revised Statutes. No right, title, privilege, or immunity which could be claimed under the authority of the United States was involved, and the validity of no treaty or statute of, or any authority exercised under-,, the United States was drawn in question. Neither was there any statute or authority of the State relied on which was in conflict with the Constitution, treaties, of laws of the United States.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1892)…atute of one State is brought in a court of another State, the Constitutionand laws of the United StatesChave riot authorized its decision upon such a question to be reviewed by this court. New York Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U. S. 286 ; Roth v. Ehman, 107 U. S. 319. But if the original liability has passed into judgment inv one State, the courts of another State, when asked' to enforce it, aré boqnd by the Constitution and laws of the United States to give full faith and credit to that judgment, and if they do…
-
Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. McGREW, 188 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1903)…een domiciled in Hawaii; and that the statute “ had no operation upon her or Her personal property here; for the law which governs personal property is the law of the domicil.” As to whether a Federal question was involved at all, see Roth v. Ehman, 107 U. S. 319; Roth v. Roth, 104 Illinois, 35; Württemberg Treaty, 1844, Comp. Treaties, (1899,) 656. It is argued that by the judgment against the company in favor of McGrew’s administrator, the Hawaiian courts had adjudicated that Mrs. McGrew’s title passed to…
-
Phillips v. Mound City Land & Water Ass'n, 124 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1888)