*1 sum, pe- period right not statutory does obliterate the property. the Within already payments rede- United States to retain for a applied the Board titioner they received when do exceed the not assessment. termination of the might properly amount which have been con- appeal on this The issue raised assessed and demanded.” transaction entirely real-estate to the fined ’ petitioner The in this in effect case is matter thus The spoken. of which we have asking a Its claim it over refund. is that of Tax by the Board remained unheard paid liability 1923, its tax is now more than Appeals until June asking payment year its for that be peri- the limitations years,' and after two overpayment, credited with such to the end first time the expired, then for had od that it against be set off a claim for peti- grounds of its the petitioner amended additional subsequently taxes ascertained for interest de- by adding the claim tion to be due. position, Before it can take this purchase of the bond growing out duction surrender, it must the benefits which came itself Manitowoc between transaction to it its mistake. own To retain them words, the it claimed Company. In other for 1924 and at the apply same time them of' this deduction to an- right allowance to 1923 would be “to - exalt artifice above delinquent asserted for tax against reality.” Gregory Helvering, 293 U. S. while, same'-time, retained the 266, 268, 55 S. -, Ct. it from had the accruing to benefits January1935; Helvering v. General Utilities -effect The same item allowed 1924. (C. Co. 4) F.(2d) C. A. January 8, this, be establish an granted, if would 1935. year to de- overpayment in that sufficient The decision of the Ap- Board of Tax taxes for feat the assessment additional peals is affirmed. growing of another year the same out This, think, cannot transaction. we be justify relieving petitioner To done. admittedly due, bring it must from a tax positive within terms of the itself law. > peti- But here have a case in which we liability payment for the tioner’s addi- for 1923 is and- deter- tional taxes fixed mined, it seeks to evade- yet which to a credit for it was entitled ground that then, year it failed take HOLT HOLT. year. actually it in another This taking No. 6256. Lewis not to that of is dissimilar case 145, 146, Reynolds, 52 Ct. 284 U. S. Appeals States Court for the taxpayer deduct- L. Ed. District of Columbia. attorney’s fees and sums on account'of ed April taxes. Commission- state inheritance The return; er audited the allowed deduc- fees, but disallowed it for inherit- tion taxes; deficiency. and assessed a ance taxpayer paid deficiency and sued the trial to recover. On the Commission- defended on the that he had mis- takenly permitted a deduction fee item, taxpayer’s but that otherwise lia- greater paid. bility was than total sums He could not reassess the because the tax period run, of limitations had but insist- recovery ed that a permissible was not as taxpayer overpaid had not in fact tax, concerning which the overpayment said: “An appear must be- fore Although refund is authorized. statute limitations have barred the
assessment and collection of additional *2 ing he going was to York or to Maine New in employment. search of reach- But before
ing
changed
Baltimore he
for Cal-
course
ifornia,
relatives;
to visit
before reach-
and
ing
changed
he
for
to
California
it
get a divorce.
20th,
He arrived in Reno on
where
June
room,
where,
3d,
August
he
being
a
and
on
rented
day
expiration
after the
of the
statutory period
residence,
of six
he
weeks’
filed a suit for
on
absolute divorce
cruelty
the extreme
his wife.
Written notification of this action was
Baltimore,
sent to the
in
request
wife
with a
subsequent
that she
proceed-
waive notice of
ings,
shortly
telephone
while
thereafter a
place
conversation took
parties.
between the
David,
Alan B.
Hooe,
and
H.
Levi
Rice
August
defendant,
C.,
On
18th the
appel
with a
for
David,
Washington, D.
sister,
married
motorcar,
arrived
Reno
in another
lant.
they
husband, and,
where
met the
C., for
Cusick, Washington, D.
A.R.
attorney,
later his
in whose office the wife
appellee.
formally
process.
was
served with
MARTIN,
Justice, and
Before
The result of their confabulations was
ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRO-
ROBB, VAN
that the
attorney'
though
husband’s
advis-
—
NER, Associate Justices.
ing
independent counsel,
her to seek
which
prepared
she declined to
an answer for
do—
HITZ, Associate Justice.
wife,
filed,
acknowledged
the
wherein,
which she
and
of lim-
appeal from a decree
This is an
information,
for lack of
she de-
made
Su-
divorce with
ited
allegation
nied the husband’s
of Nevada
the District of Columbia.
Court of
preme
residence;
charge
denied his
of extreme
par- cruelty;
marriage the
waived
of subsequent pro-
their
notice
At the time of
;
ceedings
Maryland;
trial;
consented to
college in
immediate
students at a
and
ties were
February, prayed
Baltimore in
leave to resume her maiden
they
married at
name.
were
immediately
to live with
came
being
This answer
executed on August
Washington; sep-
the husband in
parents
20th,
August 21st,
the wife left Reno on
aft-
June,
decree of absolute
a
arated
considerable
entertainment
the hus-
in Ne-
by the husband
obtained
divorce was
band,
trial,
but
awaiting
without
which
for lim-
and the suit
August,
vada
25th,
August
on
only
occurred
when the
wit-
filed
the wife
divorce
ited
was
nesses were the husband
landlady.
and his
of the District of Columbia
Supreme Court
landlady
testified that she rented the
September, 1932.
room in
husband a
Reno on the 20th
June,
marriage
time of the
the husband
At the
seen him
prac-
and had
about the house on
old,
twenty-two years
and the wife
every day
tically
since that date. The hus-
had
financial means or
twenty. Neither
employment, or
testified that he
to Reno
band
came
on June
ability to
livelihood
earn a
purpose
for
20th
his home
days. The relatives of each
these difficult
period;
for an
there
indefinite
that his
means,
had some limited
appear to have
cruelty began
extreme
wife’s
a week after
supplied
money
sup-
whatever
to have
marriage;
their
consisted
continuous
marriage
to sustain the
port was used
faultfinding
argument,
varied
threats
lasted,
litigation
which
fol-
suicide;
attempt
culminated in an
it.
lowed
him;
only by
was terminated
choke
desertion;
little more
After a
than three months to-
that all of the trouble was due
largely
quarrels
fault;
consumed
gether,
which
and that she came
out Reno
other,
reconciliation,
party
wife,
blames
seeking
a
each
consid-
5th,
to her
on
returned
relatives in
and refused. A
ered useless
of di-
June
Baltimore,
thereupon
while on
11th the
granted
husband
vinculo was
vorce a
June
day,
day
his father’s house
an
and on the next
say-
plain-
left
automobile
same
since
Nevada,
he has never
earlier
complains
tiff left
of Wash-
ington.
operate
And the same
returned.
acts would
Reno,,
the same effect in
and would oust
brought suit
September,
In
whatever
the Nevada court ever
of Co-
the District
matter,
had in the
we have seen
alimony be-
limited divorce and
lumbia
much
liberality
practice,
of Nevada
treatment
and cruel
cause of-the desertion
*3
we assume that even in that forward-look-
of her husband.
ing jurisdiction parties to a cause of divorce
alleged that both
In this bill the wife
by
not litigate
day
copulate by
and
of
District
parties
of the
were residents
night, inter
pendente
sese et
lite.
Columbia;
divorce as
Nevada
attacked the
wife,
fraudulent;
mari-
But the
she resumed
averred that
executed her an-
Reno,
swer in
be-
her
which was not
tal relations with
husband
filed until aft-
jurisdiction,
she left
thereby;
a miscar-
that
pregnant
repre-
suffered
came
was not
therefrom;
there,
sented at
unable to
the trial
riage
and has been
and the alleged re-
sumption of
since.
marital
support
or
herself
relations
work
was not called
to the attention of the court
there. But
Reno
left
that she
further avers
She
is brought
in the court here in a
forward
her matrimonial
understanding that
with an
manner
attention,
that
forces it
our
amicably adjusted, and
difficultieshad been
she remained
and while the trial judge
no finding
made
of
after the
until
that belief
fact on
subject,
up
the evidence is sent
against
entered
had been
decree of divorce
record, and,
opinion, supports
our
by letter
notified thereof
her and she was
the allegation
wife,
of the
who is corrpbo-
from her husband.
by
rated
her sister
physicians
and her
to an
of
him
her
later informed
When she
extent overcoming the denial of the hus-
condition,
publicly denied re-
pregnant
he
band.
therefor;
she retain-
sponsibility
and when
The trial court held that the husband had
with
sought
and
a conference
ed counsel
no legal
Nevada;
domicile in
that his resi-
husband,
District of Colum-
he left the
her
(was
dence there
only;
simulated
that his
with her there-
did not communicate
bia and
domicile was in the District of Columbia
after.
throughout
period
litigation;
of the
that
this
de-
The husband’s answer to
bill
decree is entitled to no faith
Nevada
Columbia;
nied residence in the District
Columbia; that
and credit in the District of
alleged
June,
in Nevada since
residence
the husband deserted the wife when he went
up the Nevada divorce as
and set
Reno;
entitled
to
and that she is therefore
marriage between the
having dissolved the
alimony
to a limited divorce and
here.
sup-
parties
port
extinguished any right to
and
From a decree to this' effect we have
or
from him.
appeal,
this
with sixteen
er
assignments
He further denied desertion or
ror, including many repetitions and restate
here;
resumption
or
of marital re-
contention,
ments of the same
all of which
Reno;
lations while in
or
understand-
examined,
only
have- been
but
a few
compose their difficul-
to
ing with
which need be discussed.
proceedings
or
discontinue
ties
that when his
admitted
For we
Nevada decree to
But he
be
divorce.
consider
pregnancy
validity
her
party
him of
of no
here because neither
informed
wife later
state,
of the child and
paternity
legally
was ever
domiciled in that
publicly denied
and
he
house.
from his father’s
parties
ordered
because
collusion of the
proceedings.
the Nevada
relatives, testified
parties,
their
Both
and
re-
pleadings, and if we
support
these
The wife never asserted domicile in Ne-
resumption
allegation of
gard the wife’s
vada;
and while the husband testified
established,
in Reno as
relations
marital
the court at Reno that he came there
think,
requires
which,
us to
the evidence
we
purpose making
it his home for an in-
importance in both
do,
of conclusive
that is
time, he
testified in the court
definite
also
wife,
pleadings
in her
and
For the
courts.
Washington
pro-
that he
to Reno to
went
court,
Washington
up
sets
evidence
cure
divorce.
occurring after all
matters
fact as
this
relied
day
He filed his
on the
after his
complaint
justify
suit
on in her
expired,
one,
preliminary sojourn
except
dis- six weeks’
which will be later
divorce—
cussed—so
on
his
day
he left the
after
in Reno the
condoned
casually
entered,
marriage,
return-
the decrees so
thereafter
never
explain
granted by
sojourners,
his
a few of our states to
attempts to
ing,
and while
tourists,
family
no ex-
passage
and birds
have
illness
continued absence
validity or
Dis-
the traterritorial
effect in the
proceeding,
exigencies
and the
this
trict of
under
fact that
Columbia
the Constitution.
findings of
trial
formal
court made
probably
And while
law of
to Reno
it is
true that a
purpose
going
the husband’s sole
own,
divorce;
like
he had no divorce
our
which is based
procure a
was to
there;
adultery only,
nor
adequate
is now neither
purpose of
his domicile
community,
appropriate
to the life of the
Washington
that he
for Connecticut
left
produce
big-
suit;
perjury,
and tends to
a train of
process
which find-
avoid
in this
amy,
yet
bastardy,
constitutional
ings
supported
evidence.
are
relaxed,
courts,
is not
rule
to be
is governed
This case
Andrews v.
recognized
the evil
be
cor-
Andrews,
U.
47 L.
S. Ct.
*4
by
Legislature
the
it sees
rected
whenever
366,
legal
Ed.
it was held that
domi-
where
fit to do so.
cile within
state is
a divorce
the
essential
the Con-
extraterritorial effect under
controversy appeared in
When this
stitution;
appearance
the
of one or
that
here,
by
trial
the
court
her
parties
both of the
in the
of divorce
court
resump
pleadings
up
set
evidence
her
jurisdiction
the
could confer no
in
absence
of
legal
tion
marital relations at
domicile;
open
legal
of
and that it
to an-
is
prior
effect
had condoned the
offenses
pleaded
other court where such a decree is
which
complaint.
of
she made
But when
plaintiff
to determine for itself
the
whether
preg
she later informed her husband of her
foreign
acquired
the
divorce had
a bona nancy,
publicly repudiated responsi
and he
foreign jurisdiction.
fide domicile in the
bility therefor,
did,
which he
admits that
guilty
he was
cruelty
of a new offense of
And
the
up-
Andrews
arose
Case
itself,
of
with its inherent accusation
on a Massachusetts
denying
statute
valid-
unchastity,
was sufficient to
warrant
ity in that
procured
state
divorces
else-
divorce,
also
of limited
but which
its inhabitants for
arising
causes
charges
revival of the earlier
Massachusetts,
worked
doctrine
the case
otherwise
and desertion
condoned
as
Supreme
announced
Court is clear-
Reno.
the conduct at
ly controlling here. While in the earlier
Atherton,
155,
case of Atherton v.
181 U. S.
hold that
foregoing
For the
reasons we
167,
544, 548,
page
21 S. Ct.
45 L. Ed.
of divorce is not valid
Nevada decree
794,
Gray previously
Mr.
Justice
—
Columbia, and that the de-
District of
in the
of this
Massachusetts —said
stat-
Justice
with
entered
of limited divorce
cree
law,
ute
but,
that it
no change
“made
in the
of the wife
by the trial court here
favor
words of the commissioners
good.
is
enacted,
whose
it was
advice
first
‘is found-
thought to
following
are
authorities
ed on a
comity
rule established
opinion:
of this
Bell v.
support
views
nations;
all civilized
proposed
and is
mere-
175,
551,
Bell,
21
181
S. Ct.
45 L. Ed.
U. S.
ly that no
question
doubt should arise on a
804;
Streitwolf,
179,
181
v.
S.
Streitwolf
U.
so interesting
important
as this
”
807;
553,
Ed.
Sav
Ct.
45 L.
German
21 S.
sometimes be.’
Dormitzer,
Society
& Loan
v.
192 U. S.
ings
The Nevada
question
statute
here
125,
221,
373;
128,
Had
24
48 L. Ed.
S. Ct.
jurisdiction
states its
divorce
terms of
Haddock,
562,
201 U. S.
26 S. Ct.
v.
dock
525,
state,
actual residence within the
rather than
867,
1;
Thomp
Ed.
5 Ann. Cas.
50 L.
legal domicile,
terms of
but there is no
551,
ring). the Nevada ground I on the concur jurisdiction of obtained court never in the Ne wife; filed answer by the fraud obtained vada suit was effect. husband, without therefore was Dormitzer, 192 Loan & Soc. German Sav. Ed. 48 L. page 24 Ct. U. S. S. Throckmorton, 98 U. States v. . 61-65, 93 of collusion I think But opin- on which the proceeding, the Nevada ex- part, not be ion is made to rest in *5 amined in this cause. United States Throckmorton, supra, page U. S. 98 Lanktree, 42 Lanktree v. Holmes v. App. Cal. 183 P. Iowa, Holmes, 176 N. 189 W. Iowa, 1039, Sudbury Sudbury, 209, 212; Paynter, 111 Littlefield N. W. Kan. P. 1114. CO. CASUALTY STATES UNITED Com’r, HOAGE, Deputy et al. No. 6205. Appeals for the States Court District of Columbia. C., Henry Quinn, Washington, I. D. Argued 7, 1935. Jan. appellant. April Garnett, Atty., Decided U. S. Leslie C. John J. Underwood, H. L. Asst. U. S. Wilson McCabe, E. Attys., and Wash- James C, , appellees. ington, D. MARTIN, Justice, Before
ROBB, ORSDEL, HITZ, VAN GRONER, Associate Justices.
ROBB, Associate Justice. Appeal from decree appellant’s dismissing of the District by appellee Ho-
bill to set aside an award