“ Every state has an undoubted right to determine the status, оr domestic and social condition, of the persons domiciled within its territory; except in so far as the powers of the states in this respect are restrained, or dutiеs and obligations imposed upon them, by the Constitution of the United States.
When a person domiciled in this state goes, in evasion and fraud of the law of his domicil, into another state, in order to obtain a divorce there, for a cause which had occurred here while the parties resided here, or for a сause which would not authorize a divorce by our law, it is within the power of the state, by its courts or its legislature, to declare or enact that a divorce, so obtained before acquiring a domicil in the other state, is or shall be of no force or еffect in this state. This application of the general principle has been long recognized by this court, and has been repeatedly affirmed by statute. Hanover v. Turner,
The only clаuse of the Constitution of the United States, which has been supposed to affect this сase, is that by which “ full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.” That clause indeеd prevents the judgment of a court of another state, having jurisdiction of the causе and of the parties, from being impeached for fraud, or on any other ground. Christmas v. Russell,
It is competent, therefоre, to show that a decree of divorce, granted by a court of another state, although appearing on its face to be valid, is in fact void, bécause the libellant fraudulently, and in evasion of the law of his own domicil, procured that court to еxercise jurisdiction over the case. Shannon v.
In the case at bar, the presiding judge found that the husband never acquired a domicil in the State of Maine, but went into that state solely for the purpose of obtaining, and did fraudulently obtain, a divorce there, for a cause which occurred in Massachusetts, and which was not a cause of divorce by our law. Upon these faсts, the court in Maine clearly had no jurisdiction, and the divorce there obtained is оf no force or effect in this state.
The husband still retaining his legal domicil in this Commonwealth, this court has jurisdiction of the present libel of the wife, although since their separation she has resided in another state. Gen. Sts. c. 107, §§ 13, 14. Greene v. Greene, 11 Pick. 410. Burlen v. Shannon,
The dismissal of the wife’s former libel appears by the report to have been pursuant to an agreement of the parties, by which she condoned the husband’s previous offences and agreed to live with him again, рrovided he would not commit further acts of adultery; and is therefore no proof that he had not committed adultery as charged in that libel. It being found as a fact that he did аfterwards commit adultery, such dismissal, agreement and condonation did not bar the wife frоm suing for a divorce for either his earlier or his later acts of adultery. Newsome v. Newsome, L. R. 2 P. & D. 306. Rowley v. Rowley, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 63, 65, 68. Robbins v. Robbins,
The voting list and tax list were rightly excluded. They were not ancient documents, but related to facts within the mеmory of living witnesses. They did not prove any act or declaration of the husband. The placing of his name on the voting list, without evidence that it was placed there at hi? rеquest, would