Jennings v. Jennings, 8 Div. 380.
Decision Date | 04 March 1948 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 380. |
Parties | JENNINGS v. JENNINGS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 30, 1948.
Wm C. Rayburn, of Guntersville, for appellant.
Scruggs & Glass, of Guntersville, for appellee.
Paul J. Hooton, of Roanoke, Ball & Ball, R. Luther Ingalls and Walter J. Knabe, all of Montgomery, Willis McIlwain, of Union Springs, and Jas. W. Aird, Frank Bainbridge, Dan P. Barber Beddow & Jones, Maurice F. Bishop, Geo. S. Brown, Barber & Garrison, Boutwell, Pointer & Hawkins, Chas. M Hewitt, Graham, Bibb.
Wingo & Foster, Jackson, Rives & Pettus, John A. Jenkins, Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Parsons, Wheeler & Rose, Geo. Rogers, Sirote, Permutt & Friend, Smyer & Smyer, Clark Williams, Dent Williams, J. Robert Huie and Tucker & Prince, all of Birmingham, amici curiae, in support of appeal.
This case involves the power of the legislature to authorize a decree of divorce in this state when the parties are personally before the court, but reside in another state. Doris Tate Jennings (appellant) filed her bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, Alabama, in equity, for a divorce from John Wesley Jennings (appellee) on the ground that he had become addicted to habitual drunkenness since marriage. The averments of the bill show that she resides in South Carolina. The allegations of the bill show that he also resides in South Carolina. At the time the bill was filed the respondent filed an answer admitting the allegations of the bill, except the charge of habitual drunkenness which he denies, and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Without hearing the case on the merits the court dismissed the bill on the theory that the court had no jurisdiction. This appeal is from that decree.
The right to file the bill for divorce in Alabama is predicated on an amendment to § 29, Title 34, Code of 1940, adopted by the legislature and approved July 6, 1945. General Acts 1945, p. 691. So that the matter may be understandable we set out the original section of the code and the amendment thereof.
Approved July 6, 1945. Acts of Alabama, 1945, p. 691.
In effect so far as applicable to the facts in this case, the statute provides that when the defendant is a nonresident of this state, the complainant need not be a resident of this state when the court has jurisdiction of both parties. This brings us at once to the controlling question in the case. Has the court by virtue of the statute the power to render a decree of divorce when not only the respondent, but also that complainant resides in another state? We do not think so.
Jurisdiction, which is the judicial power to grant a divorce, is founded on domicile under our system of law. Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577, 157 A.L.R. 1366; Bell v. Bell, 181 U.S. 175, 21 S.Ct. 551, 45 L.Ed. 804; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14, 23 S.Ct. 237, 47 L.Ed. 366; Sherrer v. Sherrer, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 1097; Wilkes v. Wilkes, 245 Ala. 54, 16 So.2d 15. See also The Alabama Lawyer, Volume eight, p. 37. This is true because domicile in the state gives the court jurisdiction of the marital status or the res which the court must have before it in order to act. Nelson on Divorce and Annulment, Vol. 2, p. 632; Schouler Divorce Manual p. 21; Kennan on Residence and Domicile p. 450; Keezer on Marriage and Divorce p. 73 et seq.; 27 C.J.S. Divorce, § 71, p. 633. The domicile of one spouse, however, within the state gives power to that state to dissolve the marriage. Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 63 S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273; neither party here is a resident of Alabama. Jurisdiction of the res is essential because the object of a divorce action is to sever the bonds of matrimony, and unless the marital status is before the court, the court cannot act on that status. Authorities supra. Furthermore it is recognized that unless one of the parties has a residence or domicile within the state, the parties cannot even by consent confer jurisdiction on the courts of that state to grant a divorce. 17 Am.Jur. p. 273.
'* * * The principle dominating the subject is that the marriage relation is so interwoven with public policy that the consent of the parties is impotent to dissolve it contrary to the law of the domicil. * * *' Andrews v. Andrews, supra [188 U.S. 14, 23 S.Ct. 244].
But while the foregoing may be conceded as general statements, it may be asked if domicile is necessary in the face of a statute dispensing with such a requirement? We do not have a situation where the decree rendered in one state is questioned in another state. We simply have a case where the parties want a decree in this state under the statute. It may be argued that what its effect will be in another state is not before us. Before enactment of the statute we said in Wilkes v. Wilkes, 245 Ala. 54, 16 So.2d 15, 16, that 'The courts of a state can have no jurisdiction over the marital status of persons, neither of whom is domiciled there' and in Harrison and Saunders v. Harrison, 20 Ala. 629, 644, 56 Am.Dec. 227, we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosenbluth v. Rosenbluth
...of Alabama, the courts of Alabama are without jurisdiction to entertain an action between them for divorce . Jennings v. Jennings, 251 Ala. 73, 36 So.2d 236, 3 A.L.R.2d 662. Indeed, in the Jennings case, supra, the Court struck down as unconstitutional a statute of Alabama, insofar as it co......
-
Hartigan v. Hartigan
...of both parties to the cause of action.' The proviso was added in 1945 and has been construed by this court. In Jennings v. Jennings, 251 Ala. 73, 36 So.2d 236, 3 A.L.R.2d 662, decided in 1948, the full court held that jurisdiction, the judicial power to grant a divorce, is founded on domic......
-
United States v. Edwards
...264 (1966); Hilley v. Hilley, 275 Ala. 617, 157 So.2d 215 (1963); Volin v. Volin, 272 Ala. 85, 128 So.2d 490 (1961); Jennings v. Jennings, 251 Ala. 73, 36 So.2d 236 (1948).5 Defendants chose to represent to their customers that the divorce decrees were valid without question and that reside......
-
Donnell v. Howell
...1949: 'It is firmly established by our decisions that residence in our divorce statutes means domicile.' In Jennings v. Jennings, 251 Ala. 73, 36 So.2d 236, 3 A.L.R.2d 662, both husband and wife resided in South Carolina. The wife sued in Alabama, and in her bill of complaint alleged she wa......