Jones v. Jones

• Decision Date: 11 November 1889
• Citation: 67 Miss. 195,6 So. 712
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: FANNIE JONES v. SAMUEL JONES

6 So. 712

67 Miss. 195

FANNIE JONES v. SAMUEL JONES

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 11, 1889

FROM the chancery court of Lauderdale county, HON. SYLVANUS EVANS Chancellor.

The appellant filed her bill for divorce against appellee, a nonresident of this state. Proper publication was made as required by the statute, but the defendant failed to appear. The proof developed that the marriage as well as the causes for divorce occurred in the state of Alabama.

The court being of the opinion that the court was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the causes for divorce occurred in another state, dismissed the bill, and complainant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Walker & Hall, for appellant.

The bona fide residence of the complainant gives jurisdiction without regard to where the cause of divorce occurred. Code 1880, §§ 1162, 1163; 2 Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, §§ 155-180; Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, § 220; Const. Miss. Art. vi, §16.

OPINION

WOODS C. J.

This appeal presents for our determination this single question, viz: Have the courts of this state jurisdiction in suits for divorce, where the causes for divorce occurred in another state?

The laws of this state, in their general application, must regulate and control the domestic relations of all persons resident within its borders. If the lex domicilii shall be held not to govern in matters of divorce in this state, even in those cases where the causes for divorce occurred in another state, we will inevitably find certain startling and intolerable anomalies confronting us. 1. We shall see the statutes of this state, as they affect the domestic relations of the citizens, applied and enforced in every conceivable case, except only in the most important matter of marriage and divorce. 2. We shall witness the substitution of foreign laws for our own in the determination of the rights of parties holding marital relations. 3. And we shall see consequently a part of the citizens in divorce proceedings having their rights determined by our own system of law, and another part of our citizens in like proceedings denied the benefits of our laws administered in our own courts, and remanded to foreign laws administered in a foreign jurisdiction. The adoption of the views entertained by the learned court below would lead to perplexing confusion; would deny to residents, nay, in readily imagined cases to life-long citizens, the protection...