Morey v. Morey

• Decision Date: 09 October 1880
• Citation: 27 Minn. 265,6 N.W. 783
• Parties: MOREY v MOREY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

27 Minn. 265

6 N.W. 783

MOREYvMOREY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed October 9, 1880.

Appeal from order of district court, Winona county.

Wilson & Gale, for appellant.

A. N. Bentley, for respondent.

CORNELL, J.

The requirement of the federal constitution, that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the records and judicial proceedings of every other state,” has no application to decrees and judgments in actions wherein the court has acquired no jurisdiction over the parties to be thereby affected. Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462. If, therefore, upon an inspection of the record from another state, want of jurisdiction is disclosed as to a necessary party, the judgment or decree will be held void and of no effect as to such party, even in a collateral proceeding. Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391. In determining the question of jurisdiction from such inspection in a case, when the record itself shows a particular mode or manner in which jurisdiction over the person of the defendant was acquired, it will not be presumed to have been obtained in any other way, in the absence of any averment or recital to that effect. Settlemeir v. Sullivan, 97 U.S. 447;Falken v. Gould, 10 Wis. 506, (565 Mai.)

In this case the certified transcript of the record of the divorce proceedings, which was introduced in evidence, under objection, makes this showing: On the twenty-fourth day of November, 1856, one Andrew Morey, the then husband of Clarinda Morey, the appellant herein, commenced a suit against her in the circuit court of Adams county, in the state of Wisconsin, for a divorce, on the ground of desertion, by filing on that day his bill of complaint with the clerk of that court, in which it was stated that she, the said defendant therein, “was then living in the state of Vermont.” Thereupon, pursuant to the prayer of the complaint, a writ of subpœna was issued to the sheriff of said county of Adams, commanding him to summon the said defendant, Clarinda Morey, to appear and answer said bill of complaint at a time which was therein named.

The return of the officer to this writ states that he was unable to find said defendant in his county. Upon filing this return, and an affidavit of complainant's solicitor tending to show her non-residence, an order was made on the thirtieth of December, 1856, in substance as follows: “It satisfactorily appearing to this court, upon inquiry, that the defendant cannot be found within this state, and has not caused her appearance to be entered in this court, * * on motion of complainant's solicitors it is ordered that the defendant appear, plead, answer, or demur to the complainant's bill of complaintin this cause by the - day of March, A. D. 1857, and in default thereof that the said bill be taken as confessed by the said defendant; and it is further ordered that a copy of this order be published within 20 days from...