Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Streitwolf v. Streitwolf

Streitwolf v. Streitwolf, 181 U.S. 179 (1901)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1901-04-15
Topic
general

Me. Justice Geat, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court. This case must follow Bell v. Bell, ante, 175. The law of *183 North Dakota requires a domicil in good faith of the libellant for ninety days as a prerequisite to jurisdiction of a case of divorce.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Streitwolf v. Streitwolf. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
65 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Choice of Law A decree of divorce obtained in a state in which neither party is domiciled, upon service by publication or service outside the state, is entitled to no faith and credit in another state; domicil of at least one party is a prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction to grant a divorce. 181 U.S. at 179 (citing Bell v. Bell, ante, 175)
  2. Civil Procedure — Choice of Law Where the law of the state in which a divorce decree was rendered requires the libellant to have a good faith domicil in that state for ninety days as a prerequisite to jurisdiction, a finding that the husband had no bona fide domicil there when he obtained the divorce—the wife never having been in the state nor having an independent domicil there—establishes that the court of that state had no jurisdiction over the cause. 181 U.S. at 179
STREITWOLFv. STREITWOLF,181 U.S. 179(1901)
21 S.Ct. 553
STREITWOLFv. STREITWOLF.
ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
No. 109.
Argued and submitted November 14, 15, 1900.
Decided April 15, 1901.
A decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony, obtained in the State of North Dakota, in which neither party is domiciled, upon service by publication and in another State, is entitled to no faith and credit in that State.
AUGUST Streitwolf and Elizabeth Streitwolf were married at New
Brunswick in New Jersey on June 3, 1877, and lived there as
husband and wife until August 3, 1896. On August 17, 1896, the
wife filed against the husband in the Court of Chancery in the
State of New Jersey a bill for divorce for his extreme cruelty,
and for alimony; a subpoena returnable August 29, 1896, was
served upon the husband personally in New Jersey; and in
November, 1896, after a hearing, an order was made for the
payment of alimonypendente lite.
On August 9, 1897, the husband filed against the wife in the
district court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of
North Dakota a suit for a divorce from the bond of matrimony for
her extreme cruelty and habitual intemperance; and caused to be
personally served on her in New Jersey on August 17, 1897, a copy
of the summons and complaint therein, directing her to
Page 180
answer within thirty days after service of the summons upon her,
or be defaulted.
On August 19, 1897, the husband filed in the suit in New
Jersey an answer denying the allegations of the wife's bill, but
saying nothing of the suit in North Dakota.
On September 7, 1897, the wife filed in the suit in New Jersey
a petition, supported by affidavits, for an injunction against
the suit in North Dakota, denying the husband's allegations in
that suit, alleging that the domicil of both parties was still in
New Jersey, and that his pretended residence in North Dakota was
wholly fictitious and fraudulent, and intended only to give a
colorable jurisdiction to the court of North Dakota for the
purpose of the suit therein; and further alleging that the wife
had not in anywise appeared in that suit, and that a decree
against her in that suit would be a bar to her suit in New
Jersey, and that the practical effect, and doubtless the object
of the proceeding, would be to withdraw the adjudication and
settlement of her marital rights from the court of New Jersey and
transfer the same to the court of North Dakota. On September 8,
1897, a temporary injunction was issued accordingly, to continue
until the husband should have fully answered the bill and until
the further order of the court.
On October 7, 1897, the husband submitted to the judge of the
court in North Dakota his ownex partedeposition, and theex
partedepositions of other witnesses taken in the city of New
York on October 4, 1897; and obtained from that court a decree of
divorce from the bond of matrimony for his wife's cruelty and
habitual intemperance, which recited that "the plaintiff now is
and for more than ninety days prior to the commencement of this
action has been in good faith a resident of the State of North
Dakota," and that "the court has full power and jurisdiction,
both of the subject-matter of the action, and the parties
plaintiff and defendant therein."
On January 11, 1898, the wife filed against the husband in the
Court of Chancery of New Jersey a supplemental bill, repeating
the allegations of her petition for an injunction, and alleging
the granting of the injunction, and its service upon the
husband's counsel in New Jersey and in North Dakota on the 13th and
Page 181
15th of September, 1897, and that the decree in North Dakota was
void for want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the
wife as a party, and was procured by fraud and in contempt of the
Court of Chancery of New Jersey.
In April, 1898, the husband filed an answer to the
supplemental bill, alleging that at and for more than ninety days
preceding the commencement of his suit in North Dakota, he was a
resident and citizen and domiciled in good faith in that State;
setting forth §§ 2737, 2742, 2743, 2755-2757 of the Civil Code of
North Dakota of 1895; and insisting that the decree in North
Dakota was a valid judgment, rendered with full jurisdiction over
the subject-matter and the parties, and was entitled to full
faith and credit under the Constitution and laws of the United
States.
The wife filed a general replication to the answer. The
evidence tended to show, and the Court of Chancery of New Jersey
found, the following facts:
In November, 1896, the husband sold out his business in New
Brunswick, rented the building and furniture to the grantee of
the business, and went to New York and boarded there for a while,
and then went to Europe on a pleasure tour, and returned to New
York in the following March, and remained there until May 5,
1897. In April, 1897, negotiations were going on between him and
his wife for a settlement of their difficulties, which entirely
failed before the 1st of May. About that time he became
acquainted with a firm of lawyers, Hoggatt Caruthers, who had
an office in New York, and were attorneys engaged in the business
of procuring divorces; and he talked with them, and found that
they had an office and a representative in Mandan, North Dakota.
Streitwolf had never been in Mandan, knew nobody there, and had
no connections, directly or indirectly, with Mandan, or with
anybody in North Dakota. On May 6, 1897, without informing
anybody where he was going, or that he intended to change his
residence, he left New York and went to Mandan; arrived there on
Sunday morning, May 9, and in the afternoon of the same day was
introduced by a travelling companion to one Voss, who represented
Hoggatt Caruthers in Mandan. He took board at a boarding-house, stayed
Page 182
there a few weeks, and then went to the Yellowstone Park. He
wrote to nobody that he was at Mandan, dated no letters there,
and gave no notice to anybody of his residence there. But while
in the Yellowstone Park he wrote to his son that he was taking a
trip through that country. In July he came back to New York, and
was there a week or more; and sought and obtained an interview
with his son, who was then living with his mother in Jersey City
and working in New York city; and in that interview stated that
he was going to Germany to get a legacy that had been left to
him, and invited his son to go with him, and his son promised to
give him an answer on the evening of July 30. The son went to the
rendezvous on that evening, and his father was not there. About
that time Streitwolf went to Mandan, and neither his son nor any
other person, as far as appears, had the slightest idea that he
had been away from home with a view to changing his residence, or
adopting a new home. He arrived at Mandan in August, and on
August 9, three days from his arrival, commenced his suit against
his wife for divorce, and took measures to have the papers served
upon her in New Jersey.
The court held that the husband had nobona fidedomicil in
North Dakota, that the judgment there was obtained by fraud and
imposition on the court, and that the court there had no
jurisdiction; and issued a perpetual injunction against setting
up that judgment.
The decree was affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals of
the State of New Jersey. 13 Dickinson (58 N.J. Eq.) 563. The
husband sued out this writ of error.
Mr. Alan H. Strongfor defendant in error.Mr. Willard P. VoorheesandMr. Robert Adrainfor plaintiff in error, submitted on their brief.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
This case must followBellv.Bell, ante, 175. The law ofPage 183North Dakota requires a domicil in good faith of the libellant for ninety days as a prerequisite to jurisdiction of a case of divorce.Smithv.Smith, 7 North Dakota, 404, 413. The facts in evidence warranted, and indeed required, the finding that the husband had nobona fidedomicil in the State of North Dakota, when he obtained a divorce there, and it is not pretended that the wife had an independent domicil in North Dakota, or was ever in that State. The court of that State, therefore, had no jurisdiction.Judgment affirmed.