Garner v. Garner

• Decision Date: 18 March 1881
• Citation: Garner v. Garner, 56 Md. 127 (Md. 1881)
• Parties: WILHELMINA E. GARNER v. JOHN H. GARNER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

56 Md. 127

WILHELMINA E. GARNER v. JOHN H. GARNER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 18, 1881

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.After the decree was passed the defendant filed a petition asking that the prohibitory clause be stricken out, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to decree such prohibition against her, she being a non-resident, and not having been lawfully brought into Court.The Court(DOBBIN, J.,) overruled this petition and the defendant appealed.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., GRASON, MILLER, ALVEY ROBINSON, IRVING, and MAGRUDER, J.

William Reynolds, for the appellant.

No counsel appeared for the appellee.

ROBINSON J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill by the appellee a citizen of this State, praying a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from the appellant now residing in the City of New York, upon the ground of abandonment.

In granting the divorce the Court below, in the exercise of the discretion vested in it by the statute of 1872, ch. 272 further ordered and decided that the appellantWilhemina E Garner, should not contract marriage with any other person, during the life-time of the appellee.

It is conceded that the domicil of the husband is the matrimonial domicil, and that the Court had jurisdiction to grant the divorce; but it is insisted that so much of the decree as forbids the appellant from marrying again is a decree or judgment in personam rendered against the appellant, a resident of another State, and therefore void.

This objection is we think well taken.To render a judgment binding, the Court must have jurisdiction over the person or subject-matter.Jurisdiction over the person can only be acquired by service of...