August Streitwolf v. Elizabeth Streitwolf
| Decision Date | 15 April 1901 |
| Docket Number | No. 109,109 |
| Citation | 21 S.Ct. 553,181 U.S. 179,45 L.Ed. 807 |
| Parties | AUGUST STREITWOLF, Plff. in Err. , v. ELIZABETH STREITWOLF |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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 alimony pendente 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 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 own ex parte deposition and the ex parte depositions 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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laird v. State
...551, same case reported in 45 L. Ed. 805; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 15, 23 Sup. Ct. 237, 47 L. Ed. 366; Streitwolf v. Streitwolf, 181 U. S. 179, 21 Sup. Ct. 553, 45 L. Ed. 807. In addition I cite Wilson v. State, 27 Tex. App. 47, 10 S. W. 749, 11 Am. St. Rep. 180; Lutcher v. Allen, 43 T......
-
John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock
...and a nonresident defendant. Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14, 47 L. ed. 366, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237; Streitwolf v. Streitwolf, 181 U. S. 179, 45 L. ed. 807, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175, 45 L. ed. 804, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 551. This brings us to again consider a case heretof......
-
Williams v. State of North Carolina
...to no faith and credit in New York or in any other state.' The same rule was applied in the companion case of Streitwolf v. Streitwolf, 181 U.S. 179, 21 S.Ct. 553, 45 L.Ed. 807. Referring to these two prior cases as holding that 'domicil was in any event the inherent element upon which the ......
-
Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow
... ... Bell, 181 U.S ... 175, 21 S.Ct. 551, 45 L.Ed. 804; Streitwolf v ... Streitwolf, 181 U.S. 179, 21 S.Ct. 553, 45 L.Ed. 807; ... of the Vice Chancellors concurred, on August 8, 1908 ... Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. (N ... ...
-
Lucy S. Mcgough, Introduction
...that a court in a state in which neither party is domiciled lacks jurisdiction to enter a divorce judgment); Streitwolf v. Streitwolf, 181 U.S. 179, 183 (1901) (holding the lack of a bona fide instate domicile invalidates a state's jurisdiction over a divorce proceeding); Lynde v. Lynde, 18......