Williams v. North Carolina 317 US 287 (1942), is the case of the United States Supreme Court where the Court ruled that the federal government determines marital status and divorce between states. line. Mr. Williams and Ms Hendrix moved to Nevada and filed for divorce from their respective spouses. After the divorce ended, Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix married and then moved back to North Carolina. They stayed there together until they were sued by the state of North Carolina for a great cohabitation.
Video Williams v. North Carolina (1942)
​​â € <â €
In 1942, divorce was not widely accepted in the United States. In 1942 the annual divorce rate was 10.1 per 1,000 married women, lower than the 2015 figure of 16.9 per 1,000 and much lower than the 1980 peak of nearly 23 per 1,000.
In 1916, Mr. Williams marries Ms. Carrie Wyke in North Carolina and stayed there until May 1940. In 1920, Ms. Hendrix marries Mr. Thomas Hendrix and lived in North Carolina until May 1940. In June 1940, Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix moved on. to Las Vegas, Nevada and on June 26, each filed for divorce from their respective spouses. "The defendants in the divorce act never looked or served with the process in Nevada.In the case of the accused Thomas Hendrix service by publication is by publication of a call in the Las Vegas newspaper and by sending copies of the calls and complaints to his last post office address. Defendant Carrie Williams a North Carolina sheriff sent him in North Carolina copies of summons and complaints ". Mr. Williams was given a divorce decision on 26 August 1940 by the state of Nevada on the grounds of extreme cruelty, the court's finding that 'the plaintiff has and is now a bona fide and sustainable resident of the County of Clark, the State of Nevada, and has been a resident for more than six weeks immediately before the commencement of this action in the manner prescribed by law '. It was not until October 4, 1940 that Mrs. Hendrix was declared divorced on the basis of deliberate neglect and extreme cruelty and made the same findings with the petitions of the petitioner in Nevada as it was made in Williams's case. On the same day, October 4, 1940, Mr. Williams and Mrs. Hendrix were married in Las Vegas, Nevada. Soon after their marriage, they returned to North Carolina where they stayed together as husband and wife until there was a lawsuit against them.
Mr Williams and Ms Hendrix were prosecuted under North Carolina law for bigamous cohabitation. They plead not guilty by offering copies of Nevada's divorce decisions and argue that their Nevada divorce and marriage papers are valid in Nevada and North Carolina. The state of North Carolina argues that since none of the defendants in Nevada's divorce are in Nevada or enters an appeal there, North Carolina will not recognize a divorce in Nevada under the rule of Pridgen v. Pridgen, 203 NC 533. Furthermore, states that Mr. Williams and Ms Hendrix did not go to Nevada to establish a bona fide but more residence to take advantage of Nevada's law, where it is easier to divorce than in North Carolina (since it only takes 6 week to get a divorce in Nevada), to get a divorce through fraud in that court.
Maps Williams v. North Carolina (1942)
Court Opinion
The North Carolina Supreme Court, in affirming the verdict, stated that North Carolina is not required to recognize Nevada's decision under the full conviction and clause of the Constitutional credits (Article IV, 1) on the grounds of Haddock v. Haddock, 201 US 562. The hunch from a majority opinion that Nevada's divorce is unreliable suggests that the second theorist's tried state of the case may have been an alternative reason for the decision below. That's enough to sustain ratings under the Bell v. Bell , 181 US 175 - a case in which the Court declared that divorce decisions are not entitled to full conviction and credit when it has been granted to constructive services by a Nevada court, a country in which no couples are domiciled. But there are two reasons why the jury does not reach that issue in this case. In the first place, North Carolina made no attempt to defend the judgment below on the ground. In addition he acknowledges that there may be sufficient evidence in the records to require that the petitioners be deemed 'to have been actually domiciled in Nevada.' In second place, the verdict against the petitioner is common. "It was held that a divorce given by Nevada, on the finding that one spouse domiciled in Nevada, must be respected in North Carolina, where Nevada found its domicile unquestionable even though the other couple did not appear or be served by the process in Nevada and despite recognition such as divorce alludes to North Carolina policy. " Williams and Ms. Hendrix were "convicted of massive cohabitation" and were sentenced to several years in state prisons.
Next development
After the decision is made at Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina trial, the ruling stood for two years before being called back to court in 1944 to reexamine the decision. "The record of the 1942 trials does not present the question of whether North Carolina has the power to deny full conviction and credit for Nevada's divorce decisions because, contrary to the findings of Nevada's court, North Carolina found that no bona fide dominance was obtained in Nevada." The Supreme Court ruled that, "Nevada's divorce is legitimate, and should be given full belief and credit by North Carolina, if travelers are actually living in Nevada when they accept a divorce, but domicile is a jurisdictional requirement for Nevada courts: North Carolina may be constitutionally trying to re-issue domicile Nevada before, and, if the court finds that less domicile, it may punish the straggling population. "This solution is immediately messy. The court met in 1948 and decided that if both husband and wife appear in a trial in Nevada it can not then challenge the divorce with a 'collateral attack'. It also means that a third party can not attack the judgment.
Since Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina from 1942, American law in this field has changed in two different but related ways. "First, all 50 states (in 1985) now allow the dissolution of marriage to at least one 'no mistake' Secondly, in various contexts the Supreme Court has recognized not only the constitutional right to marry but the widespread freedom of the intimate association. the state will endeavor to defend the marriage against the will of one spouse and that the trial will be given equal weight today given in the 1940s.
References
External links
- Text Williams v. North Carolina, 317 US 287 (1942) is available from: Ã, CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Ã, OpenJurist
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments