FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   801   802   803   804   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825  
826   827   828   829   830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837   838   839   840   841   842   843   844   845   846   847   848   849   850   >>   >|  
ce; and when the Florida court ruled that she was a _bona fide_ resident, the husband did not appeal. Inasmuch as the findings of the requisite jurisdictional facts, unlike those in the Second Williams Case, were made in proceedings in which the defendant appeared and participated, the requirements of full faith and credit were held to bar him from collaterally attacking such findings in a suit instituted by him in his home State of Massachusetts, particularly in the absence of proof that the divorce decree was subject to such collateral attack in a Florida court. Having failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded him by his appearance in the Florida proceeding, the husband was thereafter precluded from re-litigating in another State the issue of his wife's domicile already passed upon by the Florida court. In Coe _v._ Coe,[68] embracing a similar set of facts, the Court applied like reasoning to reach a similar result. Massachusetts again was compelled to recognize the validity of a six-week Nevada decree obtained by a husband who had left Massachusetts after a court of that State had refused him a divorce and had granted his wife separate support. In the Nevada proceeding, the wife appeared personally and by counsel filed a cross-complaint for divorce, admitted the husband's residence, and participated personally in the proceedings. After finding that it had jurisdiction of the plaintiff, defendant, and the subject matter involved, the Nevada court granted the wife a divorce, which was valid, final, and not subject to collateral attack under Nevada law. The husband married again, and on his return to Massachusetts, his ex-wife petitioned the Massachusetts court to adjudge him in contempt for failing to make payments for her separate support under the earlier Massachusetts decree. Inasmuch as there was no intimation that under Massachusetts law a decree of separate support would survive a divorce, recognition of the Nevada decree as valid accordingly necessitated a rejection of the ex-wife's contention. Appearing to revive Williams II, and significant for the social consequences produced by the result decreed therein, is the recent case of Rice _v._ Rice.[69] To determine the widowhood status of the party litigants in relation to inheritance of property of a husband who had deserted his first wife in Connecticut, had obtained an _ex parte_ divorce in Nevada, and after remarriage, had died without ever ret
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   801   802   803   804   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825  
826   827   828   829   830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837   838   839   840   841   842   843   844   845   846   847   848   849   850   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Massachusetts

 

divorce

 
husband
 

Nevada

 

decree

 

Florida

 

subject

 
separate
 

support

 

proceeding


result

 

attack

 

collateral

 

similar

 
participated
 

Williams

 

Inasmuch

 

findings

 

personally

 

defendant


granted

 

obtained

 
proceedings
 
appeared
 
plaintiff
 

jurisdiction

 
earlier
 

failing

 
payments
 
finding

petitioned
 

married

 
involved
 
return
 

adjudge

 

matter

 
contempt
 
significant
 

litigants

 
relation

inheritance

 

status

 

widowhood

 

determine

 

property

 

deserted

 
remarriage
 

Connecticut

 
recent
 

necessitated