Gettys v. Gettys

Decision Date30 September 1879
Citation71 Tenn. 260
PartiesRebecca Gettys v. James Gettys et al.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

FROM KNOX.

Appeal from the Chancery Court at Knoxville. O. P. TEMPLE, Ch.

A. S. PROSSER and HOUK & GIBSON for Complainant.

W. P. WASHBURN and LOGAN & LUCKEY for Defendant.

DEADERICK, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Rebecca and James Gettys were married in Pennsylvania in 1866. Previous to the marriage they entered into a contract in contemplation of marriage, she relinquishing all claim to his estate, real or personal, if she survived him, and he agreeing, in consideration thereof, to secure her an annuity of $300, after his death and during her life. They resided, from the time of their marriage, in the county of McMinn, Tennessee, where defendant James had property and carried on business, until, as she alleges, he proposed she should remove to Knoxville and he would remain at Athens and visit her occasionally. In 1876 she filed a bill against him for divorce and alimony, on the ground of cruel treatment and abandonment. To this bill respondent James answered, denying her charges and alleging in a cross bill that his life was in danger from her, and asking a divorce from her. Both bills were dismissed, and James Gettys appealed, but did not prosecute his appeal in this court.

Mrs. Gettys filed another bill for divorce and alimony in the chancery court at Knoxville in January, 1878, alleging that she had obtained information that defendant James Gettys, in the fall of 1877, had gone to Utah Territory, taking his son with him as a witness, and there obtained, on the 8th of October, 1877, a decree of divorce, which is exhibited with her bill, and which she alleges shows inhuman conduct toward and treatment of her.

The decree purports to be rendered in the probate court of Salt Lake county, in the Territory of Utah, and it appears from the transcript, and an affidavit of complainant James Gettys, that proceedings were instituted in the Utah court August 25, 1877, and a final decree, declaring complainant had forfeited her rights under the marriage contract, for divorce rendered on the 8th of October next thereafter. It is alleged in Mrs. Gettys' bill that at the time the affidavit of defendant James bears date, August 25, 1877,” which purports to have been made and attested in Utah, the said James was at his home in Athens, McMinn county, and that he was absent in Utah but a few weeks, went expressly to institute proceedings against his wife for divorce, and returned to his home when his object was accomplished, and that he was not a bona fide resident of Utah at the time said suit was instituted, but had his domicil in Tennessee, where his business was carried on during his temporary absence. The defendant filed a demurrer to the bill,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hamm v. Hamm
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 2 Mayo 1947
    ...such a domicile in the divorce forum, at least where that issue had not been litigated in a truly adversary proceeding. Gettys v. Gettys, 71 Tenn. 260, 31 Am.Rep. 637; Chaney v. Bryan, 83 Tenn. 589; Davis v. Davis, 305 U.S. 32, 59 S.Ct. 3, 83 L.Ed. 26, 118 A.L.R. 1518; cf. Wolff v. Wolff, 1......
  • Hamm v. Hamm
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 2 Mayo 1947
    ...such a domicile in the divorce forum, at least where that issue had not been litigated in a truly adversary proceeding. Gettys v. Gettys, 71 Tenn. 260, 31 Am.Rep. 637; Chaney v. Bryan, 83 Tenn. 589; Davis Davis, 305 U.S. 32, 59 S.Ct. 3, 83 L.Ed. 26, 118 A.L.R. 1518; cf. Wolff v. Wolff, 134 ......
  • Wiseman v. Wiseman
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 7 Septiembre 1965
    ...to the courts of this State in actions for divorce, one or both the parties must be domiciled in the State.' [See also Gettys v. Gettys, 71 Tenn. 260, Brown v. Brown, 155 Tenn. 530, 296 S.W. "Domicile' is defined as the place 'where a person has his principal home and place of enjoyment of ......
  • Bernardi v. Bernardi
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 20 Diciembre 1956
    ...of them, were domiciled in Shelby County, Tennessee. If either or both were so domiciled, the court had jurisdiction. Gettys v. Gettys, 71 Tenn. 260, 31 Am.Rep. 637; Brown v. Brown, 155 Tenn. 530, 296 S.W. 356. In that situation, the cause having been tried in the lower court without the in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT