Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/338

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES

311

whether these marriages were good or bad de ity of her marriage with Mr. Edward Armitage. pended on the validity of the South Dakota judg In concluding his judgment the judge made the fol ment. He had not to consider the effect of the lowing observations of peculiar interest to Ameri South Dakota judgment on English law, except on can lawyers and legislators. " I wish to make one one point, because he had found that Mr. Gillig general observation. On this side of the Atlantic was domiciled in the State of New York and had we have difficulties enough in dealing with ques submitted to the jurisdiction of South Dakota. tions arising in suits for divorce. But I think I Such importing of jurisdiction to a court was ab am right in saying that throughout the British solutely ludicrous in English law and would be of Empire there is a general recognition that it is the no effect whatever, unless the court had jurisdic husband's domicile which decides the tribunal to tion founded on domicile. It was true that Profes try the cause. This principle enables the courts sor Dicey had discussed the question and seemed of our empire to deal with cases more simply than to incline to the opinion in one passage that liti can the courts of the United States, for it is obvi gants can import jurisdiction to a court of divorce ous that there are more difficulties in cases where by submitting to it, but that was not in accord questions of different jurisdiction arise, when a ance with the law of this country as he held it to court has not the one simple test of the husband's be. But that view did not prevail in the United domicile to guide it. I can only hope that the States, and he had to find as a fact what was the efforts that are being made by the Commissioners law in that country. The evidence before him on the Conference for the Uniformity of Legisla went to show that the courts of New York — the tion throughout the United States and the labors state of Mr. Gillig's domicile — would recognize the of the various societies having that object in view South Dakota judgment, inasmuch as he had taken may successfully bring about a unified law in part in the South Dakota proceedings and had matters of divorce. Perhaps the publicity of this made a cross-charge against his wife in the court case will attract their notice." of that state (Jones v. Jones, 108 .N. Y. 415). And this recognition obtained in spite of the fact CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Combination to that in the state of New York divorce could only Fix Gas Rates.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — Peoria Gas and be obtained by reason of adultery, while in South Electric Company v. City of Peoria, 26 Supreme Dakota cruelty and desertion were sufficient Court Reporter, 214, determines that an agree causes for a dissolution of marriage. That being ment between rival gas companies, to fix the price so, the only question remaining was to consider the for gas in violation of the Illinois anti-trust act, case in respect to English law. Were they to does not, after they cease to act under it, defeat recognize as binding in this country a decree ob their right to invoke the due process of law clause tained in a state where the husband was not domi of the Federal Constitution to prevent the enforce ciled, which nevertheless was recognized as such ment of a municipal ordinance, which by establish in the state in which he was domiciled? That ing unremunerative rates, has the effect of taking question had not yet really been decided, but the private property for public use without just com cases most in point were Harvey v. Farnie, pensation. Ap. Cases, 43, and Bater v. Bater, otherwise CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Impairment of Lowe. 21 The Times L. R. 517.) Was this Contract — Franchises.) U. S. court to recognize a divorce recognized in the State Obligation of of the husband's domicile? He must answer that Sup. Ct. — An important decision involving con question in the affirmative. The husband's siderable difference of opinion among the members status had been determined in South Dakota and of the court is contained in Knoxville Water recognized as altered in the state of New York. Company v. The Mayor and Aldermen of the city The parties had ceased to be man and wife in the of Knoxville, 26 Supreme Court Reporter, 224. A state where they were domiciled. Their union majority of the court there held that the obliga had been dissolved and recognized as dissolved tion of an agreement by a municipality to give a in the state of the husband's domicile, and must be water company an exclusive franchise for thirty recognized as dissolved all the world over. That years as against any other person or corporation, was the only logical way of looking at the matter. is not impaired by the municipal establishment of its own independent system of water works under Therefore, by recognizing the South Dakota di subsequent legislative authority. This decision vorce, the first marriage of the petitioner was dis solved, and accordingly her marriage with her seems to proceed very largely on the ground that present husband and that of Mr. Gillig with his grants of franchises and special privileges are al second wife •were valid marriages. The finding ways to be construed most strongly against the entitled the petitioner to a declaration of the valid donee and in favor of the public, so that the fran