Humphreys v. Humphreys

• Decision Date: 12 June 1924
• Citation: 123 S.E. 554
• Parties: HUMPHREYS. v. HUMPHREYS.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

123 S.E. 554

HUMPHREYS.

v.HUMPHREYS.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 12, 1924.

Appeal from Law and Chancery Court of City of Norfolk.

Suit for divorce by Arthur C. Humphreys against Jeane Carter Humphreys, now known as Jeane Carter Strong. From a decree for defendant dismissing his bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E. R. F. Wells and Jas. E. Heath, both of Norfolk, for Appellant.

Williams, Loyall & Tunstall, of Norfolk, for appellee.

WEST, J. Arthur C. Humphreys and Jeane L. Carter were married on April 12, 1905, in Fauquier county, Va., and took up their residence in Norfolk, Va.

According to the testimony of the appellee, appellant continuously, from a date not long after their marriage, treated her with extreme cruelty, without cause or provocation, and, by reason of his inhuman and brutal treatment of appellee, her health was broken down and she was forced to, and did, leave him on several occasions, returningupon his promise to amend his conduct and to treat her with love, kindness, and consideration, which he failed to do; and on the 31st day of December, 1916, the appellee was forced to again leave the appellant, and from thence she did not return to, or live with, him; all because of his extreme cruelty and the repeated and continuous acts of such cruelty, which rendered her life miserable, endangered and destroyed her health, and rendered further cohabitation and life with him a menace to her life.

Her repeated attempts to live with appellant resulted in her complete breakdown, first physically and then mentally.

In 1908-1909 appellant became seriously involved in a business trouble, and on February 3, 1909, in fulfillment of an antenuptial agreement, he conveyed to his wife certain valuable real estate in the city of Norfolk, and about the same time transferred to her certain stocks and bonds.

On the occasion of her first breakdown appellee went back to her old home in Warrenton, Fauquier county, and thence to a sanitarium in Washington, D. C., conducted by a Miss Silvester. Thence she went to Dr. Sinkler's hospital, in Philadelphia, where she remained about three months, and was advised to go South until warm weather. She accordingly went to Somerville, S. C, for about six weeks, returning to Norfolk in June. Upon her return appellant resumed his dictatorial and abusive conduct toward her, with the result that she "went to pieces" within a month, and returned to her people in Warrenton.

Appellee returned to Norfolk in the autumn and remained until near the end of the following summer. The result of her stay was a repetition of her former experience, and in August she left, and stayed away until December. She then returned to Norfolk in good health, but her husband's attempted domination of her life was continued, and each time she returned, "it seemed * * * he grew worse than the time before."

She then left and went to her brother in Florida, where she stayed 18 months.

During this absence appellant made no contribution whatever to her support. He continued to live in the house which-he had deeded to her, but gave her not a penny

In the summer of 1915, they met in Washington, D. O., and decided to again try to live together, and, after a visit to a friend, she returned to Norfolk in October. In the following January her nerves were in such condition that she had to be sent to the. Westbrook Sanitarium for treatment. Her husband then said if she broke down again he would "send her to the asylum at Williamsburg."

She remained at the Westbrook for three months, but upon her return to Norfolk she received the same treatment she experienced before, and her nervous breakdown was accompanied by nausea in an intensified form. After a short stay she was forced to return to Westbrook for six weeks. Again she came back to Norfolk, and the nausea returned to her. She soon lost all she had gained at the sanitarium, and after a month's stay she went to Warrenton. In September, 1916, she returned to Norfolk for a short stay, but with the same result upon her health. On December 15, 1916, she came back to Norfolk for what proved to be her last attempt to live with her husband.

Reaching the conclusion that she was no longer required to jeopardize not only her physical but her mental well-being, on December 31, 1916, she left Norfolk for her brother's home in Warrenton. Before leaving she informed her husband that she did not intend to return. She remained in Warrenton several months, and then visited her sister, Mrs. Hayes, with whom she spent the summer of 1917. She next visited the home of Mrs. Edward Carter, where she stayed until she left for Reno, Nev., on January 5, 1918.

Upon her arrival she engaged a home with a private boarding house, and entered a business college. Later she took a position in a department store, which she held for nearly a year, becoming a registered voter, and voting in several elections." In addition, she worked in a knitting mill at night.

On July 23, 1918, appellant was informed by his Reno attorney that appellee had, on July 22, 1918, instituted suit against him for a divorce. A copy of the summons and complaint in the suit was served on appellant on or about August 1, 1918, by the deputy sergeant of the city of Norfolk, Va. He received practically the same notice as that required to be given a nonresident defendant under the law of Virginia. While appellant made no appearance, his Reno attorney kept him informed as to every step taken in the case.

The ground of the suit was extreme cruelty, not taking the form of traumatic injury, but producing an effect on the physical and mental well-being of the appellee more serious than would have been caused by a blow upon her person. On September 17, 1918, the Second judicial district court of the state of Nevada, for the county of Washoe, entered a decree granting appellee an absolute divorce a vinculo, and a personal decree against appellant for alimony at the rate of $250 a month, and an allowance of $500 for attorneys' fees.

She remained in Reno until the latter part of May, 1919, when she came East, on the advice of her counsel at Norfolk, to attend to matters in connection with her contemplated suit against appellant for the recovery of the property conveyed to her in pursuance of the antenuptial agreement. Shehad intended to return to Reno in November, 1919, but the property suit delayed her. After her return from the West she secured a government position in Washington through a senator from Nevada, going to work February 1, 1920.

On October 17, 1919, she instituted in a Norfolk court an action of ejectment against appellant to recover from him the home in Norfolk, where he was living, which he had deeded to her a few years after their marriage.

On May 29, 1920, appellee married Richard U. Strong, of Washington D. C.

In September, 1920, appellant instituted this divorce suit against Jeane Carter Humphreys, then known as Jeane Carter Strong, In which he charged that the Nevada divorce obtained by her was null and void, that her pretended marriage to Richard U. Strong was void, and that he was entitled to a divorce from her on the ground of desertion and of her adulterous intercourse with Strong.

To this bill of complaint, appellee filed her answer, together with a certified copy of the judgment roll of the Nevada court, in which she claimed that the decree of the Nevada court was entitled to full faith and credit under the Constitution of the United States, and in addition that the Virginia court should at least recognize it through comity. She claimed that the Nevada decree gave her an absolute divorce from appellant, and that her subsequent marriage with Strong was legal and valid.

Evidence was taken by both parties, the appellant's evidence being in some respects in conflict with that of the appellee.

Further reference may be made to the evidence during the course of this opinion.

Upon a final hearing on September 27, 1921, a decree was entered recognizing the decree of the Nevada court on the ground of comity, denying the prayer of appellant for a divorce, and dismissing his bill. To that decree this appeal was allowed.

The appellant assigns as error the action of the court,

1. In recognizing as valid and binding the Nevada divorce decree;

2. In refusing to hold that the Nevada divorce decree was void because Mrs. Humphreys had never acquired a bona fide domicile in that state, and also because the court in that state which rendered the decree had never acquired jurisdiction of appellant;

3. In refusing to grant to appellant a divorce from his wife on the grounds of desertion and adultery.

This case is one of first impression in this court.

There is a sharp conflict of authority on the subject of the effect to be given by the courts of one state to a foreign decree of divorce obtained upon constructive service.

Some of the early cases sustain the proposition that under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution a conclusive effect should be given to such divorces, while others sustain the proposition that such a decree is without any effect in a foreign jurisdiction.

The lending case on the subject is Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 26 Sup. Ct. 525, 50 L. Ed. 867, 5 Ann. Cas. 1, in, which the Supreme Court of the United States was required to decide, for the first time, whether the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution compelled the recognition of such a decree as the one now under consideration. The court decided, as the only federal question involved, that it did not, and expressly left to the state courts the application of the principles of state comity where they may elect to apply the same.

According to the weight of authority, a foreign divorce obtained on constructive service in a state other than that of the matrimonial domicile should be recognized on the ground of comity.

In 19 Corpus Juris, p. 373, the law is stated thus:

"Where, however, the state of plaintiff's domicile is...