John Olmsted v. Daniel Olmsted, No. 102
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Day |
| Citation | 216 U.S. 386,30 S.Ct. 292,54 L.Ed. 530 |
| Parties | JOHN H. OLMSTED and William H. Olmsted, Plffs. in Err., v. DANIEL H. OLMSTED, Ellen A. Olmsted, Wife of Daniel H. Olmsted, et al |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
| Docket Number | No. 102 |
v.
DANIEL H. OLMSTED, Ellen A. Olmsted, Wife of Daniel H. Olmsted, et al.
Mr. Mortimer W. Byers for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 386-388 intentionally omitted]
Page 388
Messrs. Charles H. Luscomb and Read G. Dilworth for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 388-390 intentionally omitted]
Page 390
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
This case is brought here because of alleged violation, in the judgment of the supreme court of New York, of the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution. The judgment was entered in the supreme court of New York by an order of the court of appeals of the same state. 190 N. Y. 458, 123 Am. St. Rep. 585, 83 N. E. 569.
The facts, in substance, are: Silas Olmsted, a resident of the state of New York, died in that state in 1874, devising by his will, duly probated, a one-half interest in certain real estate in New York to his son, Benjamin F. Olmsted, with the remainder over to the lawful issue of said Benjamin. In 1850, Benjamin F. Olmsted, while a resident of the state of New York, married Mary Jane Olmsted, of the state of New York, and lived with her in that state until January, 1870. Benjamin F. Olmsted had children by that marriage, who are defendants in error in this case. On February 28, 1874, without procuring a divorce from his first wife, Benjamin F. Olmsted went through a marriage ceremony in New Jersey with Sarah Louise Welchman. Two children, John H. and William H. Olmsted, who are the plaintiffs in error in this case, were born, in the state of New Jersey, of this attempted marriage. Thereafter, in 1880, Benjamin F. Olmsted and Sarah Louise Welchman, with their two children, went to live in the state of Michigan. In 1882, Benjamin F. Olmsted secured a divorce from his first wife, mary Jane Olmsted, in accordance with the laws of Michigan, in the circuit court of Wayne county, Michigan. Service was made of process by publication in a Detroit newspaper, and no personal service was made on Mary Jane Olmsted, nor did she appear in the action, judgment being granted by default. On August 22, 1882, Benjamin F. Olmsted and Sarah Louise Welchman were married in the state of Michigan. By the provision of a statute enacted in that state in 1881, children born out of wedlock became legitimate upon the subsequent marriage of
Page 391
their parents. In January, 1883, in an action in the supreme court of New York, a decree of separation and for alimony was granted to Mary Jane Olmsted from her husband, Benjamin F. Olmsted. Benjamin F. Olmsted did not appear in that action, and the record contains no evidence of service of summons upon him. He was represented by counsel on a motion to sequestrate his property, and upon appeal from an order thereon. The judgment was affirmed. January 22, 1902, and Benjamin F. olmsted 30, 1900; Mary Jane Olmsted died Janyary 22, 1902, and Benjamin F. Olmsted July 16, 1905.
The action was for partition of the New York real estate devised under the will of Silas Olmsted. The plaintiffs in error, John H. and William H. Olmsted, children of the marriage with Sarah Louise Welchman, claim the right to participate equally with the children of Benjamin F. Olmsted and mary Jane Olmsted, as lawful issue of Benjamin F. Olmsted, in the real estate located in the state of New York, and devised under the will of Silas Olmsted. The supreme court of New York, by its judgment, denied the right of the plaintiffs in error to thus participate.
The opinion delivered in the New York court of appeals shows that its decision was rested, in part, upon the invalidity of the Michigan marriage, because the courts of Michigan had never obtained jurisdiction over Mary Jane Olmstead, the first wife of Benjamin F. Olmsted. For that view the learned court, in denying that it was bound to give full faith and credit to such a decree and to the Michigan statute of 1881, cited Re Kimball, 155 N. Y. 68, 49 N. E. 331; Winston v. Winston, 165 N. Y. 555, 59 N. E. 273; Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 50 L. ed. 867, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 525, 5 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1; Atherton v. Atherton, 155 N. Y. 129, 40 L.R.A. 291, 63 Am. St. Rep. 650, 49 N. E. 933, 181 U. S. 155, 45 L. ed. 794, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 544.
It also puts its decision on the ground that the Michigan statute of 1881, legitimating the children born previous to marriage, could not have the effect of admitting them to participate in the division of the real estate in the state of New York, as it was passed long after the death of Silas
Page 392
Olmsted, and the probate of his will, under which his legitimate grandchildren had vested estates as remaindermen, subject to the life use in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duke v. Durfee, No. 16763
...141 U.S. 87, 105-106, 11 S.Ct. 960, 35 L.Ed. 640; Fall v. Eastin, 1909, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 1910, 216 U.S. 386, 30 S.Ct. 292, 54 L.Ed. 530; Hood v. McGehee, 1915, 237 U.S. 611, 35 S.Ct. 718, 59 L.Ed. 1144; Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, ......
-
Curry v. Canless, No. 339
...10 S.Ct. 557, 33 L.Ed. 918; Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65, 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 924, 17 Ann.Cas. 853; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386, 30 S.Ct. 292, 54 L.Ed. 530, 25 L.R.A., N.S., 1292; United States v. Guaranty Trust Co., 293 U.S. 340, 345, 346, 55 S.Ct. 221, 223, 79 L.Ed......
-
Plaza Amusement Co. v. Rothenberg, 28348
...375; A. & F. C. Union v. Yount, 25 L.Ed. 888; De Vaughn v. Hutchinson, 41 L.Ed. 827; Green v. Riddle, 50 L.Ed. 547; Olmstead v. Olmstead, 54 L.Ed. 530; Investment Company v. Caldwell, 38 L.Ed. 356; Arnt v. Griggs, 33 L.Ed. 918; U. S. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 38 L.Ed. 971. The consideration for t......
-
People ex rel. Jones v. Chicago Lloyds, No. 28664.
...estate (Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186, 20 S.Ct. 873, 44 L.Ed. 1028), a judgment determining legitimacy of children (Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386, 30 S.Ct. 292, 54 L.Ed. 530, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 1292), or the manner of adoption of children (Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611, 35 S.Ct. 718, 59 L.......
-
Duke v. Durfee, No. 16763
...141 U.S. 87, 105-106, 11 S.Ct. 960, 35 L.Ed. 640; Fall v. Eastin, 1909, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 1910, 216 U.S. 386, 30 S.Ct. 292, 54 L.Ed. 530; Hood v. McGehee, 1915, 237 U.S. 611, 35 S.Ct. 718, 59 L.Ed. 1144; Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, ......
-
Curry v. Canless, No. 339
...10 S.Ct. 557, 33 L.Ed. 918; Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65, 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 924, 17 Ann.Cas. 853; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386, 30 S.Ct. 292, 54 L.Ed. 530, 25 L.R.A., N.S., 1292; United States v. Guaranty Trust Co., 293 U.S. 340, 345, 346, 55 S.Ct. 221, 223, 79 L.Ed......
-
Plaza Amusement Co. v. Rothenberg, 28348
...375; A. & F. C. Union v. Yount, 25 L.Ed. 888; De Vaughn v. Hutchinson, 41 L.Ed. 827; Green v. Riddle, 50 L.Ed. 547; Olmstead v. Olmstead, 54 L.Ed. 530; Investment Company v. Caldwell, 38 L.Ed. 356; Arnt v. Griggs, 33 L.Ed. 918; U. S. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 38 L.Ed. 971. The consideration for t......
-
People ex rel. Jones v. Chicago Lloyds, No. 28664.
...estate (Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186, 20 S.Ct. 873, 44 L.Ed. 1028), a judgment determining legitimacy of children (Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386, 30 S.Ct. 292, 54 L.Ed. 530, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 1292), or the manner of adoption of children (Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611, 35 S.Ct. 718, 59 L.......