State of Ohio Popovici v. Agler 1930
| Decision Date | 20 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 35,35 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO ex rel. POPOVICI, Vice Consul of Roumania, v. AGLER et al., Judges of Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio. Argued Jan. 7-8, 1930 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Atlee Pomerene and Malcolm Y. Yost, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 380-381 intentionally omitted] Mr. Harry Nusbaum, of Canton, Ohio, for respondents.
The relator was sued for divorce and alimony in a Court of the State of Ohio. He objected to the jurisdiction of the Court, but the objection was overruled and an order for temporary alimony was made. He thereupon applied to the Supreme Court of the State for a writ of prohibition, but upon demurrer to the petition the writ was denied. 119 Ohio St. 484, 164 N. E. 524. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 279 U. S. 828, 49 S. Ct. 265, 73 L. Ed. 979.
The facts alleged are that the relator is Vice-Consul of Roumania and a citizen of that country, stationed and now residing at Cleveland, Ohio, and it is said by the Supreme Court to have been conceded at the argument that he was married to Helen Popovici, the plaintiff in the original suit, in Stark county, Ohio, where she resided. The relator invokes article 3, section 2, of the Constitution: 'The judicial Power shall extend * * * to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.' 'In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls * * * the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction'; and also the Judicial Code (Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231) § 256 (28 USCA § 371). To this may be added section 24 (28 USCA § 41(18) giving to the District Court original jurisdiction: ; the Supreme Court by section 233 (28 USCA § 341) being given 'exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors or other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants, as a court of law can have consistently with the law of nations.'
The language so far as it affects the present case is pretty sweeping, but like all language it has to be interpreted in the light of the tacit assumptions upon which it is reasonable to suppose that the language was used. It has been understood that, 'the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of the United States,' Ex parte Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 583, 594, 10 S. Ct. 850, 853, 34 L. Ed. 500, and the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States over divorces and alimony always has been denied. Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, 16 L. Ed. 226. Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 162, 167, 20 S. Ct. 58, 44 L. Ed. 115; De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U. S. 303, 307, 26 S. Ct. 485, 50 L. Ed. 765. A suit for divorce between the present parties brought in the District Court of the United States was dismissed. Popovici v. Popovici (D. C.) 30 F.(2d) 185.
The words quoted from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slater v. Biehl
...to domestic relations matters over which the federal courts do not otherwise have jurisdiction. See Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 382-383, 50 S.Ct. 154, 74 L.Ed. 489 (1930) (provisions granting the federal district courts original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the......
-
DiRuggiero v. Rodgers
...other public ministers, and consuls--does not extend to suits for divorce and alimony. Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383-84, 50 S.Ct. 154, 155, 74 L.Ed. 489 (1930). This court has since held that the domestic-relations exception bars federal diversity jurisdiction over a sui......
-
Ankenbrandt v. Richards
...an appeal from a nonstate, territorial court. Id., at 308, 26 S.Ct., at 486. The third decision is Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 50 S.Ct. 154, 74 L.Ed. 489 (1930). In Popovici, a Roumanian vice-consul was sued by his wife in an Ohio state court for a divorce and alimony. He ......
-
Jackson v. United States National Bank, Portland, Ore.
...the tacit assumptions upon which it is reasonable to suppose the language was used." State of Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 1930, 280 U.S. 379, 383, 50 S.Ct. 154, 155, 74 L.Ed. 489. These "tacit assumptions" undoubtedly took note of the accumulated experience of the English courts of 1789......
-
Federalism and families.
...not apply to suits within the territories); Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 167 (1899) (same). (116) See Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383-84 (1930) ("If when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent a......
-
Unintended Consequences: Why Congress Should Tread Lightly When Entering the Field of Family Law
...and institutions cannot explain the thinking that gave rise to those very institutions and expertise. 30. Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383-84 (1930). On this basis, the Court held that constitutional provisions requiring that all proceedings against ambassadors and other re......
-
The meaning of "general laws": the extent of Congress's power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
...matters reserved to the States,' and do not belong to the United States" (omission in original) (quoting Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 384 (1930))). The federal government, however, may not be constitutionally bound by state definitions of terms such as "marriage" and "spous......
-
Standing in the Shadows: Honoring the Contractual Obligations of Cohabitants for Support
...and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of the United States." Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383 (1929) (quoting In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)). For a detailed discussion of the federal domestic relations exception, see B......