Hastings v. Douglass

• Decision Date: 15 March 1918
• Parties: HASTINGS et al. v. DOUGLASS.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

249 F. 378

HASTINGS et al. v. DOUGLASS.

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia.

March 15, 1918

H.H Emmert, of Martinsburg, W.Va., and Nelson C. Hubbard, of Wheeling, W. Va., for plaintiffs.

Stuart W. Walker, of Martinsburg, W. Va., for defendant.

DAYTON District Judge.

S.P Douglass died intestate in Berkeley county, this state without issue. Shortly before his death he intermarried with the defendant, who survived him and has qualified as administratrix of his estate. He died seised of real and personal property estimated to be worth more than $40,000. The plaintiffs, his collateral heirs at law, all residents of the state of Pennsylvania, have instituted this suit in equity for two purposes: First, to have the marriage between decedent and the defendant, Daisy Grace Douglass, declared void because of mental incapacity on the part of decedent at the time of its consummation; and, second, to have the personal estate taken charge of by a receiver appointed by this court and the real estate partitioned among them barring the defendant of any interest in either by reason of the invalidity of the marriage contract.

Upon this motion to dismiss counsel for defendant presents some very interesting questions of jurisdiction. He insists: (a) That the bill on its face shows its primary purpose to be to annul the marriage contract after the death of the husband, and that federal courts have no jurisdiction to entertain it for this purpose, because no diversity of citizenship existed between the husband and wife, and especially because the jurisdictional amount of $3,000 in monetary value cannot be shown to be in controversy. (b) That under the statutory law of West Virginia marriages solemnized in this state, when either of the parties was insane or physically incapacitated, are not void, but voidable--void only from and after the entry of a decree of a state circuit court, in a suit in equity, wherein it is shown that the parties, or one of them, have resided in the state for a year next preceding the institution of the suit, and that the county where it is brought is the one wherein the parties last cohabited, or (at the option of the plaintiff) the county in which the defendant resides, if a resident of the state, but, if not, the county in which the plaintiff resides, and that now, by reason of the amendatory act of the Legislature, passed in 1915, "in no case shall a suit for divorce be maintainable unless the plaintiff be an actual bona fide citizen of this state." He insists thereupon that (1) marriages are not, in this state, assailable at all after the death of a party thereto, or if so, (2) that these plaintiffs are debarred from assailing this marriage, because they are not and never have been residents of the state.

Again it is argued by counsel for defendant (c) that, if it be held that this suit can be maintained on the ground that it is a suit for partition of real estate, it, for this purpose, could only be so maintained after the court had first decided, adverse to the prayer of the plaintiffs, that the marriage was valid, and that the widow was entitled as such to an interest in the estate; for, unless she be held to have such interest, the parties plaintiff would be the only ones having interest, and no diversity of citizenship, giving a federal court jurisdiction, would arise, it being shown by the allegations of the bill that all of these plaintiffs are citizens of the same state, Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, counsel for plaintiffs insist that jurisdiction in this court is secured by reason of the bill seeking partition of an estate in which the dower interest of the defendant assailed is largely in excess of the jurisdictional requirement, and diversity of citizenship, as between her and the plaintiffs, is admitted to exist; that the local law of the state regulating marriage and divorce is inapplicable, because, as affecting their property rights, the marriage contract, like any other contract, can be assailed and set aside by any court of competent jurisdiction at their instance.

To determine the right as to these conflicting contentions, so ably presented and argued by counsel, has been somewhat difficult, in view of the fact that a careful search of the precedents in West Virginia and Virginia (where the statutory provisions relating to the substantive law of marriage and divorce are practically the same) presents no case in point. This case, therefore, so far as such legislation is concerned, may be considered as one of first impression, and subject to original construction. The weight of authority establishes the rule that the lex loci governs with respect to the matrimonial capacity of the parties, as well as with respect to the manner or form of solemnization. See note to Hills v. State, 57 L.R.A. 155. The fact that no case is reported in either of the two states involving the questions here presented is significant, and to a certain extent indicates a general acquiescence in the construction I am herein led to place upon statutory provisions of this state.

Turning to the federal authorities, we find that the Supreme Court in Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, 16 L.Ed. 226, expressly "disclaim altogether any jurisdiction in the courts of the United States upon the subject of divorce, or for the allowance of alimony, either as an original proceeding in chancery, or as an incident to a divorce a vinculo, or to one from bed and board." This disclaimer is approved in Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 20 Sup.Ct. 58, 44 L.Ed. 115, but held not applicable to the jurisdiction of the territorial courts. The ruling in Re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 10 Sup.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500, is substantially to the effect that the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states. In De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303, 26 Sup.Ct. 485, 50 L.Ed. 765, it is said:

"It has been a long-established rule that the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction upon the subject of divorce, or for the allowance of alimony, either as an original proceeding in chancery, or an incident of a divorce or separation, both by reason of the fact that the husband and wife cannot usually be citizens of different states, so long as the marriage relation continues (a rule which has been somewhat relaxed in recent cases), and for the further reason that a suit for divorce in itself involves no pecuniary value." In Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 26 Sup.Ct. 525, 50 L.Ed. 867, 5 Ann.Cas. 1, it is held:

"Questions concerning alleged fraud in contracting a marriage and laches on the part of one of the parties in bringing an action for divorce are matters solely of state cognizance, and may not even be allowed to indirectly influence this court in determining the federal question which is involved. The states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce, and the Constitution delegated no authority to the central government in regard thereto, and the destruction of the power of the states over the dissolution of marriage as to their own citizens cannot be brought about by the operation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States."

The marriage contract is sui generis. It is the very foundation of society. In it, not alone the parties contracting are interested, but the state also. Under the laws of many states, both church and state must have part in its consummation. The consideration for it is the highest known to the law, and it is well settled that a man indebted to the extent of insolvency may enter into an antenuptial contract conveying his property to the woman in consideration of her marriage to him, and that, under such contract, the wife will hold the property as against common creditors. Unlike most contracts, marriages can be assailed and avoided only upon such grounds as are specifically set forth in statute. These grounds are limited, and vary in different states. In South Carolina they cannot be annulled at all. The wisdom of the Supreme Court's disclaimer of jurisdiction over such contracts...