| Show VALIDITY OF DIVORCE DEGREES DECREES U 11 Si s Supreme Court Hands Down Important Decision ALL Ala DEPENDS D ON RESIDENCE J It I Mint lie iso 1011 III In Olio Olmo Mute Milt In All til unit anti Vice Io r Washington April 15 Tha United States Statu Supreme Court today decided l a n number lumler of ot cities cam C the tue validity I In lii Il one State Slate of divorce grunted granted In other State latO Th time The court held practically thai In iii II oases cases In II which the times de tIe deC tIeI I C chIC BU u Is I granted In itt II whore tho time hus hUI husband humid band bald and wife have hAva madu their legal le l residence It Is valid In any al part of ot time the United States but that bitt In him II other othor eases cases cass cassill ill In l i which there thore Is no legal 1811 residence In Inthe II I time the State In which tIme the decree Is II grant led c 01 they the urn mire arl Invalid The opinions were down don by h Justice Gray and ald In Iii Involved time the cases case es of Atherton vs VI I her va v 1 Ikil I and amid un vs ss 1 wolf In Jim time tho Atherton once case the time obtained o a 1 decree of ot divorce In II time thu State of ot Kentucky where 11 re they had haL resided ed Cd el as and amid wife cite titter lifter time the Ihl wife had bad left the time husband amid gone gumme gUie to tu the tho ho home of ot her In iii II Clinton N Y YIn Yn YIn In n hU his hIl opinion Justice Justlee Gray Gry culled coiled at attention to tu und laid lahl stress 1 upon upun time the fact falt that Kentucky was the time of their marital residence und and he lie also allo brought blought out tho time fuel fact that notice of time the petition petton for tor divorce had been bach forwarded tl to lo New ew York anti ant Unit she shu had made no response The question Involved was Wil he said Ill whether time the de decree le letle decree valid valhi In New York the time cree tle ld II ques question quel tion tiomi having been raised by n a 1 counter proceeding of time the wife Ue for tor divorce in lit II Now York He lie concluded conclude that owing oln to the time fact of oC the thu former residence In Iii II Kentucky Kentuck anti and the time f tact ct that due cuu notice had hu be n given her Mrs Irl was waH wasas wasas as lS much bound by tho Kentucky decree decre n If film Iho 1111 present In lii II time the court when It I was wa granted Hence lence the time de decision elsion cllon of ot the time New e York supreme court courtIn In jim favor of ot the time wife Ild against the time validity of or time tho Kentucky decree decre was reversed The rime he other two to cases also Ilso came from toni New York Y Olk In n the time Bell lel case Clie the time quos ques question q ue lion tion ton ot of the time validity of it I decree granted I to time the th husband In Pennsylvania was WIle ruined und amid ali In iii the time case easl the tho lie same lame question queston was WIS relied raised ril I the this husband In lii a 11 I decree irritated granted to North North Dakota In la m both oth those these CI tS time the decrees wore rere held haIti hell to ho bo Invalid be lie because cause cuse neither time the husband nor time the wife had been heen domiciled In tIme the State In which I time the nl divorce wits was In those cases i timo ho of time the Now New York courts courty were d In n the time case caso Justice Peck Peckham Peckham ham dissented on tin the ground gound the tIme hind had been himself responsible for Cor the time vItes change of ot residence |
