BELL
v.
BELL
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.
A Pennsylvania court lacked jurisdiction to decree a divorce where neither party was domiciled in Pennsylvania, as the husband had described himself as a New York resident under oath just weeks before filing his divorce petition in Pennsylvania without evidence of a subsequent change of domicil. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Pennsylvania divorce decree was entitled to no faith and credit in other states, while preserving the wife's claims for alimony and costs through a nunc pro tunc judgment entered as of the date the case was argued.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Gbay,
after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The question in this case is of the validity of the divorce obtained by the husband in Pennsylvania. No valid divorce from the bond of matrimony can - be decreed on constructive service by the courts of a State in which neither party is domiciled. And by the law of Pennsylvania every petitioner for a divorce must have had a bona fide residence within, the State for one year next before the filing of the petition. Penn. Stats. March 13, 1815, c. 109, §11; May 8, 1854, c. 629, § 2; Hollister v. Hollister, 6 Penn. St.
449. The recital in the proceedings in Pennsylvania of the facts necessary to show jurisdiction may be contradicted. Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall.
457. The referee in this case has not only found generally that at the time of those proceedings the wife was a resident of the State of New I orle, and the husband was not a bona fide resident of Pennsylvania; but has'also found that on January 31, 1894, some ten weeks before he filed his petition in Pennsylvania, he described himself, under oath, in a petition for the probate of a will in Erie County in the State of New York, as a resident of that county; and that no evidence was offered that he actually changed his domicil from New York to Pennsylvania. Upon this record, therefore, the court in Pennsylvania had no jurisdiction of the husband’s suit for divorce, because neither party had a domicil in Pennsylvania., and the decree of divorce was entitled to no faith and credit in New York or in any other State. Leith v. Leith, (1859) 39 N. H. 20; People v. Dawell, (1872) 25 Michigan, 247; Sewall v. Sewall, (1877) 122 Mass. 156; Litowitch v. Litowitch, (1878) 19 Kansas, 451; Van Fossen v. State, (1881) 37 Ohio State, 317; Gregory Gregory, (1886) 78 Maine, 187; Dunham v. Dunham, (1896) 162 Illinois, 589; Thelen v. Thelen, (1899) 75 Minnesota, 433; Magowan v. Magowan, (1899) 12 Dickinson, (57 N.
J. Eq.) 322.
The death of the husband, since this case was argued, of itself terminates the marriage relation, and, if nothing more had been involved in the judgment below, would have abated the writ of error, because the whole subject of litigation would be at an end, and no, power can dissolve a marriage which has already been dissolved by act of God. Stanhope v. Stanhope, (1886) 11 Prob. Div. 103, 111. But the judgment below, rendered after appearance and answer of the husband, is not only for a divorce, but for a large sum of alimony, and for costs. The wife’s rights to such alimony and costs, though depending on the same grounds as the divorce, are not impaired by the husband’s death, should not be affected by the delay in entering judgment here while this court has held the case under advisement, and may be preserved by entering judgment nunc pro tuno, as of the day when it was argued. Downer v. Howard, (1878) 44 Wisconsin, 82; Francis v. Francis, (1879) 31 Grattan, 283; Danforth v. Danforth, (1884) 111 Illinois, 236; Mitchell v. Overman, (1880) 103 U. S. 62.
Judgment affirmed nunc pro tunc, as of April 26, 1900.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1975)…the Constitution, Art. IV, § 1. For that purpose, this Court has often stated that “judicial power to grant a divorce — jurisdiction, strictly speaking — is founded on domicil.” Williams, supra; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14 (1903); Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175 (1901). Where a divorce decree is entered after a finding of domicile in ex parte proceedings,20 this Court has held that the [*408] finding of domicile is not binding upon another State and may be disregarded in the face of “cogent evidence” to the…
-
Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1942)…N. C. pp. 460-464) that the Nevada divorces were collusive suggests that the second theory on which the State tried the case may have been an alternative ground for the decision below, adequate to sustain the judgment under the rule of Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175—a case in which this Court held that a decree of divorce was not entitled to full faith and credit when it had been granted on constructive service by the courts of a state in which neither spouse was domiciled. But there are two reasons why we do n…1 / 3
-
United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1905)…efore had the requisite status to give that court jurisdiction, could [*277] be upset in Massachusetts by proof that the plaintiff was not in fact a bona fide resident of South Dakota. The same case was also relied upon as authority in Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175, 177, where we said: “No valid divorce from the bond of matrimony can be decreed on constructive service .by the courts of a State in which, neither party is domiciled. And by the law of Pennsylvania every petitioner for a divorce must have had a b…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457 (U.S. 1873)
- Mitchell v. Overman, 103 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1880)