In re Thomas Hanrahan's Will
| Citation | 194 A. 471,109 Vt. 108 |
| Parties | IN RE THOMAS HANRAHAN'S WILL |
| Decision Date | 05 October 1937 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
May Term, 1937.
Elements of Domicile---Domicile Held Question of Fact---Intention Proved by Circumstantial Evidence---Jurisdiction Necessary for Valid Judgment---Collateral Attack on Judgment---Jurisdiction of Court of Another State Open for Consideration---Collateral Attack as Federal Question---Scope of Full Faith and Credit Clause---Collateral Attack Where Jurisdictional Facts Asserted in Record---Relation of Due Process and Full Faith and Credit Clauses---Essence of Due Process---Judgment without Notice or Appearance---Construction of Massachusetts Statute---Of Statute for Appointment of Guardian without Notice---Appointment without Notice at Common Law---Insanity of Party to Marriage---Consent of Parties Necessary to Validity of Marriage---Capacity of Party to Marriage---Effect of Guardianship over Party on Validity of Marriage---Appointment of Temporary Guardian Held Void---Validity of Appointment of Guardian without Notice---Validity of Judgment Determined as of Time of Rendition---Purpose and Scope of Doctrine of Res Adjudicata---Operation of Doctrine---Effect of Application to Revoke Appointment of Guardian a Federal Question---Dismissal of Application as Creating Estoppel to Question Validity of Appointment---Jurisdiction on Application to Revoke and Decision as Res Adjudicata---Effect of Massachusetts Decision Resulting from Attempt to Appeal from Dismissal of Application---No Estoppel to Prove Change of Domicile and Subsequent Capacity to Marry---Guardianship Decree Not Conclusive on Domicile and Sanity of Testator When Will Made---Person Competent to Marry, Change Domicile or Make Will Though under Guardianship as Insane---No Right in Guardian to Prohibit Ward Acquiring New Domicile---Right of Massachusetts Court to Declare New York Marriage Invalid in Ex Parte Hearing---No Obligation to Recognize Decree Made without Jurisdiction---Effect of Death of Party on Nisi Divorce Decree---Massachusetts Statute Relating to Nisi Divorce Decrees Applicable to Annulment Decrees---Annulment Decree Held Decree Nisi---Effect on Marriage of Death of Party Before Annulment Decree Final.
1. A question of domicile contains two elements: residence and intention.
2. Where validity of appointment of guardian over testator made in another state was issue in will contest, domicile of testator was question of fact, not to be determined by where he was stopping at time of appointment alone, but by that fact together with his intention about remaining there.
3. Intention as involved in question of domicile may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
4. Jurisdiction of person as well as of subject matter is necessary to rendition of valid judgment.
5. Judgment of court of another state can be attacked collaterally on ground of lack of jurisdiction whether or not such lack is apparent from the record.
6. Question of jurisdiction of court of another state to render judgment appointing guardian over insane person was open for consideration in Vermont court, notwithstanding full faith and credit clause of federal Constitution.
7. Whether judgment of court of one state could be attacked collaterally in courts of another state, on ground that first court did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, was a federal question under the full faith and credit clause, and holdings of federal Supreme Court thereon were controlling.
8. The clause of the federal Constitution which requires full faith and credit to be given in each state to the records and judicial proceedings of every other state, applies to the records and proceedings of courts only so far as they have jurisdiction.
9. Rule that judgment may be attacked collaterally in court of another state, on ground that court rendering judgment was without jurisdiction, applies even when inquiry necessitates disputing jurisdictional facts positively asserted in judgment record.
10. Due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment and full faith and credit clause of federal Constitution are very closely related and in most cases if not in all, are to be considered together.
11. Notice and an opportunity to be heard are of the very essence of due process of law.
12. Judgment rendered without notice or appearance is absolutely void, not merely erroneous, irregular or voidable.
13. Massachusetts statute, in absence of construction by highest court of that state, was to be so construed as its language read in light of importance of subject matter and settled principles of law, seemed to require.
14. Statute providing for appointment of temporary guardian over person without notice to him if court finds his welfare requires such appointment, should be held to be strictissimi juris.
15. Whenever the person in question or the public would be imperiled by delay, a temporary guardian may be appointed without notice at common law.
16. If party to proposed marriage was insane, marriage would be invalid or voidable and would be so declared upon proper proceedings.
17. Marriage is essentially a civil contract, though it creates a status, and consent of parties is necessary to its validity.
18. Unless party to marriage had capacity to understand the contract and duties and responsibilities created by it, it would be subject to annulment.
19. Fact that temporary guardian had been appointed over one of parties to marriage would not as matter of law make marriage invalid, though such appointment was valid, since capacity to enter into marriage contract would have to be settled in some new proceeding which could be as well brought after the marriage as before it.
20. Appointment of temporary guardian over man seventy-seven years old without notice to him, on ground that he was insane and was intending to marry much younger woman, was unwarranted and void, though statute of state in which appointment was made provided that if court found that welfare of person over whom guardian was sought required, it might appoint temporary guardian with or without notice.
21. A decree appointing a guardian over an insane person made without notice is void in toto.
22. Validity of judgment is to be determined as of time of its rendition; if it is void then, it remains so forever, but there are circumstances under which a party may be estopped to assert its invalidity.
23. It is for the public good that there be an end of litigation hence the doctrine of res adjudicata, that fact once established by court of competent jurisdiction shall not be open to contest by parties or their privies in any subsequent litigation.
24. Doctrine of res adjudicata operates as estoppel by record.
25. Where temporary guardian was appointed by court of another state without notice, and application to revoke appointment was denied, effect of such application on right of one in privity with ward to question validity of appointment in proceedings in this State was to be tested by decisions of federal Supreme Court, since it was to be determined by consideration of due process and full faith and credit clauses.
26. Where appointment of guardian made in another state without notice was void, but petition to revoke such appointment had been dismissed and no appeal had been taken from decree of dismissal, proponent of ward's will, being in privity with him, was estopped under full faith and credit clause of federal Constitution to deny that his domicile was in such other state at time temporary guardian was appointed, or that he was then insane.
27. Though court of another state did not, for want of service have jurisdiction to render judgment appointing temporary guardian, it had jurisdiction to consider and decide question of that jurisdiction when raised by petition to revoke appointment, and its decision thereon, not appealed from or otherwise set aside, was res adjudicata as to all questions raised and considered and was entitled to full faith and credit in this State.
28. In will contest, where temporary guardian over testator had been appointed in Massachusetts on ground that he was insane and after his death special administrator attempted to appeal from denial of application made by testator to have appointment revoked, resulting in decision of Supreme Court of Massachusetts that in absence of findings it would be presumed that court below acted on sufficient evidence and that if court found testator resided in Massachusetts at time of his death and administrator had been appointed there, motion to strike off special appearance of Vermont special administrator was rightly allowed, proponent was not prevented from insisting on her rights in the guardianship matter by anything decided in that case, since testator's domicile at time of appointment of guardian was not involved.
29. Though proponent of will was estopped in proceedings in Massachusetts court to annul her marriage with testator from denying that he was domiciled there on date when temporary guardian was appointed over him or that he was then insane, this estoppel did not operate against her proving that his domicile was changed to Vermont after that date or that he was sane enough to contract the marriage, since the appointment of the guardian was not conclusive upon either question.
30. In will contest, decree of Massachusetts court under which guardian was appointed over testator on ground that he was insane, was not conclusive that testator was domiciled in such other state on subsequent day when he made will in question or that he was then insane.
31. Person may be competent to marry, change his domicile or make will though under guardianship as being insane.
32. Guardian of insane person appointed in one state cannot prohibit ward of sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial