Latterner v. Latterner
| Decision Date | 06 February 1929 |
| Docket Number | 2836. |
| Parties | LATTERNER v. LATTERNER. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Douglas County; G. A. Ballard, Judge.
Divorce action by Frederick H. Latterner against Adelia F. Latterner. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Grover L. Krick, of Minden, for appellant.
Wayne T. Wilson, of Reno, for respondent.
This is an action for divorce. Respondent, who was plaintiff in the court below, obtained a decree of divorce. In his amended complaint appears the following allegation:
"That plaintiff resides in and for more than three months immediately preceding the commencement of this action has resided continuously in the county of Douglas, state of Nevada, since the 19th day of July, 1927."
This allegation was denied in the answer. Appellant contends that the evidence did not establish the bona fides of respondent's residence in Douglas county for the period of three months prior to the commencement of the action. This is the only question she presents.
We are of the opinion that the trial court misapplied the law to the facts bearing upon this issue. This appears from the following statement of the trial court found in the bill of exceptions:
The plaintiff, however, was given a decree, and as the bona fides of his residence was a material issue, which the court did not pass upon, the resulting prejudice to appellant from this omission is apparent.
Section 5838 of the Revised Laws was amended by the Legislature of 1927 (St. 1927, c. 96), and the part involved reads:
"Divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be obtained, by complaint, under oath, to the district court of the county in which the cause therefor shall have accrued, or in which the defendant shall reside or be found, or in which the plaintiff shall reside, if the latter be either the county in which the parties last cohabited, or in which the plaintiff shall have resided three months before suit be brought. * * *"
The foregoing provision, prior to the amendment at that session of the Legislature, provided that a suit for divorce could be brought in the county in which plaintiff had resided for six months before the commencement of the action. The only change wrought by the amendment in the phraseology of the part of the section quoted was in making the time of residence three months, where it had formerly been six. Prior to the amendment the six months' residence clause had been definitely construed by this court. The residence required was determined to be of a character denoting a present intention on the part of the one claiming it to make the county in which the suit was instituted the person's home, at least for an indefinite period. It was held, also that the residence meant by said section 5838, and by the Session Act of 1911, c. 158, was one characterized by the physical presence of the person,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State of North Carolina
...the State for the required period8 requires him to have a domicil9 as distinguished from a mere residence in the state. Latterner v. Latterner, 51 Nev. 285, 274 P. 194; Lamb v. Lamb, 57 Nev. 421, 65 P.2d 872. Hence the decrees in this case like other divorce decrees are more than in persona......
-
Sherrer v. Sherrer Coe v. Coe
...the jurisdictional prerequisites under their respective laws as domicile, Wade v. Wade, 93 Fla. 1004, 1007, 113 So. 374; Latterner v. Latterner, 51 Nev. 285, 274 P. 194; since we may be unwilling to apply as loose a test of 'domicile,' in determining whether extrastate enforcement is mandat......
-
Wolff v. Wolff.
...as distinguished from mere residence in that state as a jurisdictional basis for divorce. (As to the Nevada statute, Latterner v. Latterner, 51 Nev. 285, 274 P. 194; Lamb v. Lamb, 57 Nev. 421, 65 P.2d 872; Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina, infra. As to the public policy, Graves v.......
-
Crownover v. Crownover
...solely under the full faith and credit clause--in other words, that Nevada's divorce statute being based on domicile, Latterner v. Latterner, 1929, 51 Nev. 285, 274 P. 194; Lamb v. Lamb, 1937, 57 Nev. 421, 65 P.2d 872, a divorce decree granted there absent the fact of bona fide domicile is ......