*1 SHERRER SHERRER. Argued 13-14, June
No. 36. October 1947. Decided *2 Myers petitioner. M. argued Frederick the cause for Quirico. With him the brief was Francis J. on Capeless and T. argued Lincoln S. Cain Robert him on the was James respondent. for With brief cause M. Carroll. opinion delivered
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson the Court. Coe,
We certiorari in case in Coe granted and post, p. 378, petitioners consider the contention full faith and Massachusetts has failed to accord credit of divorce courts of decrees rendered States.1 sister 1, IV, provides: 1 U. Art. “Full S. Const. Faith and Credit shall § given public Acts, Records, judicial be in each State to the and Proceedings every Congress by general other And the State. prescribe Acts, Laws the Manner in such and Pro Records ceedings proved, Effect thereof.” shall 905, May 26, 1790, amended,
The Act of R. S. Stat. § 687, provides And part: 28 U. S. C. in “. . . the said records and § Margaret respondent, E. Petitioner Shérrer Sherrer, Jersey Edward C. New married until April 3, together from 1932 lived Following long period Monterey, Massachusetts. chil- petitioner, accompanied by the two discord,
marital latter marriage, dren of the left on the date, a vacation ostensibly purpose spending Shortly Florida, of Florida. her arrival after did however, husband that she petitioner informed her housing him. intend to return to Petitioner obtained in Florida, placed her older child accommodations school, employment for secured herself.
On July 6,1944, bill of for divorce was filed complaint *3 petitioner’s at direction in Sixth the Circuit Court of the of alleged Judicial Circuit the State of Florida.2 The bill grounds extreme cruelty alleged for divorce and also petitioner a legal was “bona fide resident of the 3 of respondent Florida.” The by notice mail of received the of the pendency proceedings. He retained Florida who a general appearance counsel entered filed an denying answer allegations petitioner’s the of corn- judicial proceedings . .. shall given have such faith and to credit every them in they by court within the United States as have law usage or they the courts of the State from which are taken.” 2By statute, Courts, equity, jurisdic the Circuit of as courts have tion of divorce causes. Florida Ann. Meloche v. Stat. 65.01. § Meloche, 659, 662, 133 (1931). 339, 340 101 Fla. So. 3 provides: Section 65.02 of Florida Stat. “In obtain Ann. order to a complainant ninety days divorce the must resided have the filing State of complaint.” Florida before the of the bill of statutory requirement Florida courts construed the of residence to Respondent be that of we domicile. does not contend nor do find any requirements by evidence the of “domicile” as defined generally applied Florida cases are other than those or from differ Wade, employed tests the Massachusetts courts. Wade v. 1004, Evans, 860, (1927); 374 v. 194 Fla. 113 So. Evans 141 Fla. (1940); Fowler, So. Fowler Fla. 2d 817 So. Florida petitioner’s allegation as to including
plaint, residence.4 in the di 14, 1944, hearings were held
On November personally Respondent appeared proceedings. vorce by the a into testify respect stipulation with entered Through custody of the children.5 parties relating represented by respondent proceedings out entire her evidence to establish counsel.6 Petitioner introduced allegations generally Florida and testified residence failed complaint. respondent cross- of her Counsel rebuttal. or introduce evidence in examine 29, 1944, The Florida court on November entered specifically petitioner finding decree of divorce after Florida, of and that “is bona resident the State fide subject jurisdiction parties and the this court has . .” failed cause; Respondent matter in said . to chal- appeal Supreme lenge to the Florida the decree Court.7 respondent’s allegation
4 The first answer stated: “That legal Plaintiff is not bona-fide resident of the State Florida and continuously ninety days for more than the imme been such diately complaint. preceding filing bill on or That parties living together April about while the as residents Monterey, Massachusetts, the Plaintiff came to Florida any parties expressed of the for a visit without intention children *4 establishing separate from the and residence Defendant since, any becoming in Florida ever but without intention of remained a bona-fide resident Florida.” 5 agreement provided respondent custody should have that during year petitioner the children that the school term each subject given custody throughout year, the rest of the should be parents Before right of both to visit at reasonable times. to the entered, respondent returned to the final decree of divorce was accompanied by Massachusetts the two children. proceedings respondent throughout It is said that most “in side room.” appear in the courtroom but remained did 7Appeals final decrees of Supreme lie the Florida Court from g., Homan, V, And e. Homan v. Fla. see divorce. Const. Art. § 371,198 144Fla. So. 1,1944, petitioner
On December was married in Florida Henry petitioner one A. Phelps, whom had known while residing both were Massachusetts who had come to Florida shortly petitioner’s after arrival that Phelps petitioner State. together lived as husband and wife in Florida, they employed, where were both until February 5, 1945, when they returned to Massa- chusetts.
In June, 1945, respondent instituted an action Probate Court of County, Berkshire Massachusetts, which has given rise to the Respondent issues of this case. alleged that he is the lawful husband of petitioner, that the Florida invalid, decree of divorce is peti- that subsequent tioner’s marriage Respondent is void. prayed that might permitted he convey his real estate as if he were sole and that the court declare that he was apart from living justifiable his wife for Peti- cause.8 joined tioner issue respondent’s on allegations.
In the proceedings followed, petitioner gave tes- diyorce timony defense of the validity of the Florida decree.9 The Probate Court, however, resolved the issues adversely petitioner’s fact contentions, found that brought pursuant The action provisions was to the of Mass. Gen. (Ter. Ed.) Laws c. 36.§ many years prior departure Petitioner testified that for to her Florida, respondent frequent had made allusions to the fact that petitioner’s mother had been committed to a mental institution and suggested petitioner revealing had the same traits of mental instability. Petitioner testified that as a result of these remarks and cruelty, other acts of her health had been undermined and it necessary respondent. therefore become for her to leave In departure, order represented stay to insure her she had that her only temporary, Florida was to be but from the she had in outset fact intended not to return. Petitioner testified further that both entered, before and after the Florida decree of divorce had been she permanently had intended to reside in Florida and that she and Phelps only receiving had returned to after letter stating Phelps’ poor father was in health.
348 Florida, respond- and granted was never domiciled
she Supreme Judicial requested. he The ent the relief grounds on the of affirmed the decree Court Massachusetts re- and that the supported by the evidence that it was preclude the full did not quirements of faith credit of finding from the reexamining courts Florida domicile made the court.10 proceedings it that the outset, "'"It the should be observed entry decree prior in the Florida court requirements way divorce in no inconsistent with re- do procedural process. due We not understand respondent person- The urge contrary. spondent to his Through ally appeared proceedings. in the Florida alle- filed the substantial attorney pleadings denying he suggested complaint. It is not gations petitioner’s to conduct rights his to introduce evidence otherwise degree impaired; sug- nor is it any his defense were in him right there was not available to gested that by appeal Su- seek review of decree Florida respondent It was afforded preme Court. is clear that day respect every issue involved his court with peti- litigation, including jurisdictional issue of circumstances, is tioner’s Under such there domicile. due nothing concept process in the which demands opportunity litigate a defendant be afforded a second jurisdictional Chicago the existence of facts. Insur- Life Cherry, Co. S. Baldwin v. Iowa (1917); ance U. Traveling Assn., (1931). Men’s S.U. sug-
It also be observed that there no should of Florida, that under the law the decree of divorce gestion respect successfully is in invalid or could question any subjected permitted by to the Mas- type attack implicit assumption underlying sachusetts court. respondent position taken and the Massachusetts valid court case involves decree 351,69 320 Mass. N. E. 2d 801
349 in final the State it; which rendered and we so assume.11 jurisdiction
That
of the Florida
court to enter
valid
dependent upon petitioner’s
decree
divorce was
in
disputed.12
require
domicile
that State
This
ment was recognized by the Florida court which rendered
decree,
principle
the divorce
and the
given
fre
quent application in
Supreme
decisions of the State
petitioner
Court.13 But whether
in
or not
was domiciled
Florida at the time the divorce was granted was a matter
to be
by judicial
resolved
unlike
Here,
determination.
presented
Carolina,
the situation
in
v. North
Williams
(1945),
11
Carolina,
See Williams v. North
226,
(1945);
325 U. S.
233-234
Mining Co.,
Treinies v.
Sunshine
66,
(1939).
78,
308 U. S.
note 26
cf.
involving
No Florida case has been called to our attention
a collateral
questioning
parties,
on
attack
a divorce decree
the domicile of the
jurisdiction
decree,
and hence the
of the court which entered the
parties appeared
proceedings.
gen
where both
in the divorce
See
Petteway,
Everette v.
erally
516, 528-529,
666,
131 Fla.
179 So.
Trammell,
ex rel.
(1938);
Goodrich Co.
671-672
v.
Fla.
140
Chisholm,
500, 505,
(1939).
Chisholm v.
192 So.
177
But
cf.
Dye Dolbeck,
(1929);
Fla.
154
subjected collateral over Court given frequent consideration has been years. originating cases Insofar as period many concerned, has evolved the rule federal are courts relat adjudications judicata applies res the doctrine of subject person or of jurisdiction of the ing either pro adjudications made such have been where matter questions issue ceedings those *7 litigate.14 parties given opportunity full to which the stated. frequently reasons for this doctrine Gottlieb, it was 165, 172 in Stoll v. 305 S. (1938), Thus U. parties are to the rights said: determine “Courts as just part system government. of our It is integral a place there should be to end as that there important that place litigation. party to After begin should be day court, present in to his evidence opportunity his law, upon deci view attack the and his of the collateral jurisdiction merely to sion as there rendered retries previously is no ex issue determined. There reason to satisfactory pect will more that the second decision than first.” judi- also res
This Court has
held
the doctrine of
applied
questions
jurisdiction
cata must be
to
cases
involving
application
courts
of the
arising
state
where,
faith
under the law of the
full
credit clause
and
original judgment
rendered,
in which the
such
state
susceptible
not
to
adjudications are
collateral attack.15
14
v.
Traveling
Association,
S. 522
283 U.
Baldwin
Iowa State
Men’s
(1931);
(1938);
v.
Gottlieb,
305
165
County
U. S.
Stoll
Chicot
Drain
(1940);
v.
age
Bank,
308
371
U. S.
District
Baxter State
Sunshine
(1940);
v.
v.
We believe the the Davis that decision in Court case and in those related are clearly situations17 indicative of the result be reached Those here. cases stand for proposition the that the requirements of full faith and credit bar a defendant from collaterally attacking a di- vorce jurisdictional decree on grounds the courts a sister State where there has been participation by the defendant in proceedings, the divorce where the defendant has been accorded full opportunity juris- to contest the dictional issues, susceptible where is the decree not
16 Davis, (1938). Davis v. 305 U. S. And v. see Stoll Gott lieb, 165, 172, 305 U. S. note 13 supra. See cases discussed attack the courts
to such collateral rendered the decree.18 case, hold that principles to this we
’’“""Applying these Florida permitting erred in the Massachusetts courts subjected ground on the to attack divorce decree be in Florida at the time that was not domiciled petitioner Respondent participated in the was entered. decree general appearance, by entering a proceedings Florida matters he placing very issue the filing pleadings to contest in the Massachusetts sought subsequently court appearing before Florida courts, personally at- case, by retaining in the testimony and giving pro- represented him entire throughout who torneys respondent that It not contended ceedings. opportunity a full less than to contest given or other relevant petitioner’s any issue of domicile issue is nothing There to indicate litigation. fairly would not have evaluated Florida court Re- all relevant evidence submitted to it. good faith spondent does not even that on the basis of contend proceedings, the evidence introduced the Florida peti- an erroneous result on the issue of court reached respondent advantage domicile. If failed to take tioner’s opportunities him, responsibility afforded is his do believe the dereliction of a own. We permitted under should defendant such circumstances provide subsequent attack in the courts basis of a on a decree valid the State in which sister State it was rendered. Andrews, however,
It suggested, that Andrews (1903), U. militates we against S. result In that who been domi- husband, reached. case *9 Massachusetts, proceedings ciled in divorce instituted course, opinion scope Congressional We, no intimate as to the power legislate IV, under Article 1 of the Constitution. See § supra. note 1 having Dakota court after satisfied the residence
a South
appeared by
The wife
coun-
requirements of that State.
sel
South
pleadings challenging
and filed
husband’s
was
Dakota
Before the decree of
domicile.
divorce
granted, however,
wife, pursuant
agree-
to a consent
from
parties,
appearance
ment between the
withdrew her
decree,
proceedings. Following
entry
subsequently re-
husband returned to Massachusetts and
developed
his
between
married. After
death
contest
his
wives
to the administration of
first
second
as
husband’s estate. The Massachusetts
court con-
was void
cluded that the South Dakota decree
been domiciled
ground
on the
that the husband had not
applicable
under the
statutes of
that,
that State and
were not re-
Massachusetts,
the Massachusetts courts
quired
give recognition
to such a decree. This Court
error by
affirmed on writ of
a divided vote.19
facts,
presents
case
variations from
On its
Andrews
the rule
present
situation.20 But insofar as
said
with the
judgment
case
to be inconsistent
announced,
regarded
having
herein
it must be
superseded
subsequent
of this Court. The
decisions
prior
mod-
Andrews case was decided
to the considerable
respect
finality
law
development
ern
of the
upon which
jurisdictional findings.21 One of the decisions
primary
majority
placed
of the Court
in that case
Co.,
v. Pelican
S. 265
reliance, Wisconsin
Insurance
127 U.
(1888), was,
pertinent,
insofar as
Milwaukee
overruled
Co.,
(1935). The
County v. White
Holmes took no in the case. 20Thus, case, decree entered in the Andrews before the divorce court, appearance her the South Dakota the defendant withdrew agreement. in accordance with a consent supra. note See *10 dealing we however, that because are further, urged
It is marital dissolution of the the litigation involving from is demanded relation, a different result if this were concerned be reached case properly might pointed It is out types litigation. of with other of and regulation control under Constitution to relationships are reserved the States. family marital of the so, regulation urged, properly It is marital involves the exercise of the relation incidents Fi- importance. most powers of of the vital the States importance recognition it is that a of the nally, contended powers require- States such demands that of light of full faith and be viewed such a ments credit permit upon granted an attack a divorce decree under of by a court of a sister State the circumstances suit even where the attack is initiated a this case brought by original proceedings.22 in the defendant a recognition importance power
But the of of State’s into relationships determine the of basic social incidents of which its domiciliaries issues enter does not resolve the not a in which this case. situation This domiciliary. merely sought power to exert such over is, rather, involving This a case inconsistent assertions power by of two courts States the Federal Union go presents beyond thus considerations which the interests In policy, resolving local however vital. issues here presented, func- part we do not conceive it to be our policies tion Florida weigh the relative merits with respect divorce and related Nor do we of this matters. understand the decisions im- support proposition obligation Court to that the IV, Act posed by of the Constitution and the § Article passed of Congress something thereunder amounts to less duty faith than the to accord and credit decrees full Carolina, But Williams v. North 325 U. S. cf. full of sister States.23 divorce entered courts incorpo provisions faith and credit one of clause is purpose its framers for the rated into the Constitution by *11 sovereign an transforming aggregation independent, of of a If application policy into nation.24 in its local States part of the required give way, must times be such “is at Carolina, price system.” of our v. North federal Williams 287, 302 (1942).25 317 U. S. _ may recog- in an be say is not to no case area This "] in of interest nized which reasonable accommodations | { made. But as this Court has heretofore may properly be We believe clear, made that area is of limited extent.26 in Florida divorce decree permitting attack on the petitioner’s in Florida domicile again put which issue recognize validity of that refusing decree, power a which cannot Massachusetts courts have asserted of faith and requirements with the due be reconciled , a will power assurances that credit. We believe that such i repug- render it no less sparingly wisely be exercised nant to the constitutional commands. _j judicial recognize permissible thing
It is one
jurisdictional
where
findings
fact
such
reexamination
23
Davis,
v. North Caro
Davis v.
Williams
32,
(1938);
305 U. S.
40
(1942).
lina,
287,
294
317 U. S.
24
County
Co.,
(1935);
v. White
268,
Milwaukee
296
276-277
U. S.
(1943).
Magnolia
Hunt,
430,
Petroleum Co. v.
320 U. S.
439
25
may
judgment which we herein
well doubt
But we
policy
with state
will
to substantial
interference
announce
amount
Many
respect
which have had occasion
to divorce.
States
impropriety
per
already recognized
consider
the matter
decree where
mitting
on an out-of-state
divorce
a collateral attack
proceedings.
participated
appeared and
the defendant
(1937);
Norris,
g.,
246,
findings have been proceedings.27 parte decree ex has entered a divorce rights vital that the quite thing It another to hold held be litigation may in divorce interests involved States scrutiny by courts sister suspense pending the competent aby fact findings jurisdictional made in a manner consistent proceedings conducted court in which process and highest requirements with the of due it to do not participated. We conceive the defendant full faith and credit purposes in accord with the of the be under the requirement judgment to hold that rendered to run the required of this case circumstances sister of such collateral attack the courts of gantlet validity its of the State which ren- States before outside rejected. or That vital interests dered it is established *12 indicates us that it is litigation are divorce involved importance a than greater matter of rather lesser And place litigation.28 should be a to end such there by competent a a court where decree divorce is rendered case, obligation of under the circumstances of this the requires litigation full faith and credit that such should judgment end in the courts of State which the the rendered.
Reversed. Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Mr. Justice with whom Murphy dissenting.* concurs, Had- Holmes said of the ill-starred
What Justice Mr. “I do not dock v. Haddock be said here: equally will to an whichever suppose that civilization come end way But, S. be- case is decided.” U. just I is lieving as do that the decision announced calcu- without lated, unwittingly, promote perjury however Carolina, Williams v. North 325 S. 226 U. 165, 172(1938). Gottlieb, Cf. Stoll 305 U. S. Coe, post, p. is also a dissent Coe v. 378.] *[This existing disharmonies appreciably affecting otherwise I divorce, in relation to States among forty-eight my appropriate to state views. deem it the likelihood today’s fraught is decision only Not a law that for disregards It consequences. of untoward Massachusetts, policy a social century expressed our in a which under States, domain latterly other of the States peculiarly Constitution is concern not of the Nation. validity to decide necessary
If all that
order
another was to read
granted
of a
in one State
Constitution,
Full Faith
Credit Clause of
problem
would not have found
judges
generations
a divided Court
they have, nor would
so troublesome
de-
a
discordant
pronounced
series of
successively
have
a
given
and credit” must
“Full
faith
cisions.
implies
“judgment”
a
of a sister State. But
judgment
subject-matter
to deal with the
power
the State
what
has entered
controversy. A
court which
State
something
have
judgment
to be a
must
professes
conveyed
is what is
something
That
on which
act.
dissolving
and,
it comes
“jurisdiction,”
word
when
world
throughout
English-speaking
marriage status,
or
Whether
power
to act
domicile.
the basis
is
in a
person
given
domiciled
particular situation
circumstances,
myriad
circumstances
depends on
*13
opinion among
of
there is
consensus
diversities. But
the
over that domicile
world
courts
English-speaking
permanence of connection between
requires
of
some sense
he
it and the State which
individual who claims
the
recognize it.
asks to
_^
begin-
if from the
have been
certainly
It would
easier
had been con-
Full Faith and Credit Clause
the
ning
by
jurisdiction
assumption
to
of
strued
mean that
every
conclusive,
be
so that
of
would
the courts
a State
cer-
But such
it.
respect
other State would have
Thompson v.
law since 1873.
tainly
not
has
this
it the law when
Whitman, Wall.
Nor was
in 1945. Wil-
problem,
the divorce
Court last considered
Carolina,
A
that
S. 226.
State
v.
U.
liams North
ap-
action
another State
enforce the
is asked to
power
other
whether that
State
propriately ascertain
enforcing
do. And if
State
purported to
to do what it
regard
to the
an
under our Constitution
interest
intimate,
should not be
that
vital and
it
subject-matter
that in-
private parties
to foreclose
power
within the
An-
private
Andrews v.
by
arrangement.
terest
their
Eastin,
drews,
14;
1;
v.
Fall
215 U. S. Alaska
188 U. S.
cf.
Commission,
v. Industrial Accident
Packers Association
.~-"íf the contract were might well automobile, parties an thereto tract sell in or away involved, all permitted bargain interests in the family But has an interest out of court. the State vastly different from the interest relations of its citizens in- That ordinary it has an commercial transaction. im- bargained away cannot be bartered or terest parties controversy by a default or an ar- mediate in a in a ranged proceeding contest State strangers. parties Therefore, which the are the constitu- power marriage tional State determine fore- status two of its citizens should be deemed parties another proceeding closed between State, though types controversy even in other con- making put it to litigation siderations desirable to end might parties reopening themselves from foreclose dispute.1 I agree cannot the Constitution forbids regard Davis, contrary
1 Nor do v. S. au I Davis 305 U. thority. depend That case did not for its on the result fact adjudication jurisdiction there had been an of the court render ing enforced, the divorce inasmuch as Court found that the this granting the divorce was in fact of the domicile. 305 S. U. Andrews, at 41. Moreover Court’s citation therein Andrews *14 by any such is not bound insisting it from a State power in the wanting in a distant State proceedings honor need not and that its courts gives, alone domicile matter who no intrinsically proceeding, sham such an issue to their attention. brings the ___ reía- in the domestic interest That vital society impatiently con- almost members will be tions of its lip-service enough pay But it is not ceded.2 must implications an abstraction. commonplace as Its Nowhere problems. They define our respected. grant the States not even in States, the United wife rescind husband and freely, may a divorces most commercial they might a at will as marriage their a view of if that such thought Even one contract. desirable, it could socially marriage institution incorpo- personal view was held that such a scarcely be law for the en- into the into the Constitution or rated Clause, enacted Credit Full Faith and forcement of the 687. 122, § 28 U. S. C. Congress. First Stat. by the divorce was was ordained Constitution That when the deemed concern, rather than deepest public matter of the parties, is shown private dispute between personal only exclusively almost it could be secured fact that and not legislatures of the several special enactments Galindez, Ireland and in court. See litigation through (1947) p. Americas Divorce in the holding of
supra, of intention to overrule an absence indicates does not litigate the issue of domicile opportunity to case that v. Andrews has since Andrews inquiry as to the true facts. foreclose Carolina, recently Williams v. North respect, as been cited 226, 229, 240, 242. 287, 309, 320, 7, 325 U. S. n. 317 U. S. rep King’s Proctor to English providing for a laws Compare proceedings. Sections in divorce interests of the Crown resent the 144; 1, Mat Vict., Act, 1860, 23 & 24 5-7, c. § Matrimonial Causes 181, Supreme 31; Vict., Act, 1873, 36 & 37 c. rimonial Causes § c. (Consolidation) Act, 15 & 16 Geo. Court of Judicature England 393-94. Halsbury’s Statutes *15 unique in the is marriage contract contract, As a can ordinary private contract it to an To assimilate law. 210-14; Hill, 190, 125 v. U. S. Maynard only mislead. See cf. Dart Contracts, 584, 586; Law, §§ of the Restatement Woodward, 518, 4 627-29. Wheat. College v. mouth them between comprehend do not marriage to a parties Society contains. the relation all the interests its bene and the institution creates enforces sanctions represented society is law, As a matter of fits and duties. in other parties, of the permanent home State by the that State In these cases that of their domicile. words, was Massachusetts. subject its citizens to has seen fit to
Massachusetts law: following accord- jurisdiction in another
“A divorce decreed having jurisdic- aby the laws thereof court ing to parties both the shall tion of the cause if commonwealth; but valid and effectual this into another goes inhabitant of this commonwealth jurisdiction occurring obtain a divorce for a cause parties here, resided or for a cause here while the by the laws of which would not authorize a shall be commonwealth, a divorce so obtained this effect in this commonwealth.” Mass. of no force or 208, Gen. Laws c. § statute, substance,3
This was first enacted Rev. L. c. 76: any go any inhabitant of this shall into other “When state § country, any cause, or for state order to obtain a divorce here, any here, parties had occurred and whilst the resided or state, cause, divorce, which would not authorize a the laws of this or in this state.” a divorce so obtained shall be of no force effect cases, any or 40. “In all other a divorce decreed other state § juris- country, according having place, a court the law the parties, diction of the cause and of both of the shall be valid and effectual this state.” merely prior judicial even then formalized rule of Turner, Cf.
origin. Report Hanover Mass. 227; Appointed of the Commissioners to Revise the General pt. Commonwealth, II, p. Statutes 123; Kent, Commentaries, *108-* 109. The An- Lect. Uniform nulment of Marriages passed by and Divorce Act,4 Dela- New ware,5 Jersey,6 Wisconsin,7 identical, almost as is Maine subject. statute8 on the same says through person statute that a *16 enjoys who its other by institutions but irked its laws is concerning the of the marriage tie, severance must either his move home to some other State with congenial more laws, remain and by or abide the laws of Massachusetts. play He cannot ducks by and drakes the leav- State, ing just it to long enough advantage take of a proceeding elsewhere, devised the interests of a quick divorce, in- tending all time the to retain his home, Massachusetts as and then return resume there, taking advantage such congenial its institutions as he finds but assert his policies freedom from the restraints of concerning its sev- erance tie. a marriage right Massachusetts has divorces, to define the terms on which it will grant recognize granted by refuse to divorces other States at parties who the time are still domicil- Has it not right iarles. also frustrate evasion of permanent its policies of its who by those residents leave change spouses the State to than change their rather homes, merely they go through their because a lukewarm jurisdiction?- or over feigned contest nub of the Williams decision was State an independent
of domicile marital interest 4 See note infra. (1935). Code, Rev. Del. c. 29§ (1939).
6 N. J. Stat. Ann. §2:50:35 (1945). Wis. Stat. §247.21 Stat., Me. Rev. c. 12§ State any other they nor neither its citizens that status may transitory a connection may they with which not less because Its interest against will. abrogate its of one relationship instead marital to the parties both case, was it In Williams laws. to evade its sought Hendryx, that of Mr. Williams, Mrs. or interest interest of the It asserted. North Carolina true here of Carolina. The same is of North people State's interest While interest Massachusetts.9 with itself prosecutions, in criminal expressed may be case, also the State the Williams formally party as its speaks through when sovereign power it expresses its Cf. private parties. between litigation civil courts Kraemer, S. 1. Shelley U. is involved here exercise Massachu-
Surely there marriage policy concerning its the termination setts of over power own citizens. The Framers left its States, every in the relations effort domestic several past sixty it from States within years withdraw change An American citizen has failed.10 his domi- so, another. State must cile from one And *17 though valid even it respect another State’s divorce decree question its But the here former citizens. real is concerns Full Faith and can used whether Clause be Credit power a on of a as limitation State citizens over its domicile, who their who not change do do remove State, but who only long enough to another leave the State rigors laws, a escape divorce, its obtain then may The result of the of the assertion State’s interest be a wind sought party bargain rights away fall a who has his or her renege agreement. fact, however, now seeks to on the This should scarcely way by be allowed to in stand of the assertion the State paramount unexpected of its concern the matter. Such an wind party, may regarded fall to who a ethical standards as undeserv ing, frequent consequence findings jurisdiction. is a of lack of Holmes, J., Andrews, v. See C. Andrews 176 Mass. See note infra.
scurry back. To hold that statute say contravenes the Full Faith and is to Credit Clause that that a slight so concern the continuance or relationships termination of marital of its domi- ciliaries that may arranged its interest be foreclosed litigation parties repre- between the which it was not sented.11
Today’s hope contributing decision stir toward greater certainty of status of those divorced. But when people choose to avail of laws laxer than those themselves of the State in they permanently abide, where, which barring only divorce, they the interlude a necessary get choose to abide, continue to doubts and are inev- conflicts itable, long so forty-eight as the divorce laws of the States remain diverse, long respect and so as we law that judgment jurisdictional without foundation is not consti- tutionally entitled recognition everywhere. are These difficulties, as this reminded, Court has often inherent in our system, governmental federal power over domestic is not given relations central government. Uniformity regarding power not within the this Court to long achieve so “the domestic relations of husband and wife . . . were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex Popovici Agler, rel. v. 280 U. S.
11Today’s invalid, decision would also seem to render under the Clause, Full Faith large proportion commonly and Credit of the injunctions against domiciliary encountered prosecuting an out-of- Kempson Kempson, Eq. 94, State divorce action. Cf. 58 N. J. Eq. 303, N. Eq. 783; Pound, Progress J. 63 N. J. The the Law— Equity, 420, 425-28; Jacobs, Utility Injunc 33 Harv. L. Rev. Declaratory Judgments Migratory tions and Divorce, 2 Law & Contemp. 370; Note, Bklyn. Prob. L. Rev. 148. Since no State may enjoin changing its inhabitants from their domiciles in order to *18 procure divorces, it would seem that a of domicile henceforth recital injunction in the out-of-State divorce decree will render the retro actively any if invalid has been in the there semblance of a contest proceeding. divorce so And Burrus, 593-94.12 586, S.
384; In re 136 U. powers under its Congress not exercised long as special to meet Full Faith and Credit Clause this Court cannot problems decrees, divorce raised be sought to through adjudications its achieve the result long legisla- a train at accomplished by of abortive efforts attempt shape to and constitutional reform.13 To tive avoid in our laws policy so as to disharmonies regu surely legislation field The law is within the such, wife, and, lating the domestic relations of husband and scarcely scope It of “matters to the can within reserved States.” field be doubted that if a amendment withdrew constitutional gave Government, Act of from it Federal the States and to the substantively Congress, making provision did the same as Massachu setts, regarding granted in than the divorces countries other United country, of this would be constitutional. Such States citizens held concerning a husband law is not less law “the domestic relations of wife,” though incidentally may given even it the force to be affect appears judgment of a sister what State. uniformity attempted— achieving Three modes of authorizing adoption domestic of a constitutional amendment Federal legislation; Congressional implementing Full action relations Clause; legislation. at Faith and Credit and uniform State Such legislation tempts sought ren originally those who fostered uniformly Lichtenberger, dering divorce to obtain. See difficult (1931) Cavers, Foreword, Contemp. pp. seq,; et 2 Law Divorce & Prob. 289. Congress empower first amend
The effort to the Constitution throughout legislation uniform Nation enact domestic relations seventy was made 1884. Since then at least similar amendments Ames, proposed. Proposed the Con- have been Amendments to during Century History, stitution of the States the First its United [1896] Ann. Rep. American Historical Ass’n, reprinted as H. R. Doc. 353, 2, p. 93, Cong., Sess., pt. 190; Doc. 69th No. 54th 2d Sen. No. Cong., Sess.; “Proposed 1st Amendments to the Constitution of Congress Congress, 2d from the 69th United States Introduced 19, through Congress, Session the 78th December December (U. 1946). favorably Printing Office, S. None has been 1944” Govt. Sess., g., Cong., upon. See, Rep. e. H. No. 52nd 1st acted R. Judiciary Committee, p. 2, majority in which the House amendment, adversely pointed reporting proposed on such out *19 us, was not a power entrusted to nor is judiciary- competent it. exercise Courts are not equipped pursue for paths A discovering policy. wise court is Congress might uniformity through achieve a measure of exercise of existing powers implement its the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Suggestions by such a Congress statute be enacted have not g., lacking. See, e. Rep. 292, 319; Corwin, B. A. A. The “Full Clause, 388; Faith and of Credit” Pa. L. U. Rev. cf. Stone, dissenting, Yarborough Mr. Yarborough, Justice in 290 U. S. 202, 215, 2; Jackson, Lawyer’s n. Full Faith and Credit —The Clause the Constitution, 45 Col. L. Rev. 21. And Senator McCarran of currently of seeking legislation adopted. Nevada is to have such 1960,80th Cong., See S. 2d Sess. vigorous efforts, however,
The most have been direc- made securing tion of legislation. uniform State President Theodore Roose- velt, calling Congress provide compilation marriage on for of statistics, and divorce suggestion cooperation among included a enacting Messages States in uniform Richardson, laws. 15 Papers of the Presidents 6942. On the initiative the Governor Pennsylvania, Congress Laws, a National Uniform on Divorce forty-two represented, which was This States called Congress resolved constitutional amendment was not feasible concerning legislation. and drafted resolutions uniform State Lich- tenberger, Congress supra, Proceedings, 191-96. See also National (1906) passim; Proceedings Meeting on Uniform Divorce Laws 2d (1910) pp. the Governors of the States of the 185-98. It is Union interesting uniformity proponents that even advo- note these embodying “adopt principle cated that con- each State a statute very in” tained Massachusetts statute now held unconstitutional by uniformity. Lichtenberger, perhaps the Court the interests supra, at 194. prepared Congress approved by
The also Com- bill was (Proceedings, Conf., missioners on State Laws 17th Ann. Uniform (1907) seq.) pp. 120 et but Commissioners on Uniform State Laws by only pp. 360-361, adopted supra. three States. See establishing eventually Commissioners decided no uniform law grounds succeed, replaced pro- substantive divorce could posal Act, with the Divorce Uniform Jurisdiction would recognition range accorded protected a wider of decrees than were Haddock v. Haddock, U. S. then force. [1930] Hand- book of the National Conference Commissioners on Uniform it record, particular of a the bounds within
confined of a social fragments Only shape the record. cannot even litiga- aof windows narrow through are seen problem of a understanding acquired innate or Had we tion. *20 our at not have we would entirety, in its problem social The constructive solution. means for disposal adequate conflicting as that our problem tangled answer to so judicial simple by achieved not laws is to be divorce must be good decree is resources either/or —this We disregarded. be bad that one is respected, invention for social power available draw on the cannot with dealing adequately for the Constitution by afforded belongs Congress to the power problem, because way Court only in which this Court. The and not to the Congressional uniformity, in the absence can achieve amendment, permitting is action or constitutional impose policies divorce laws to their with laxest States judges ignorant cannot as be upon all other States. We to all men. knowledge that which common cannot is We eyes an our to the fact that certain States make close industry easy laws, encourage of their inhab- “quickie” itants of to obtain other States divorces which home them.14 To deny permit their States such States Laws, pp. adopted only by Vermont, 498-502. This act has been repealed years 1933, L. No. and was two later. L. No. 38.
Meanwhile, organizations given up attempt other have laws, although years enacted uniform divorce recent the ob- jective usually uniformly uniformly liberal rather than legislation. repressive See, g., Companion, Dec., e. Woman’s Home 1947,p. 32. field, attempts
Even in the international to avoid conflicts validity See, g., extraterritorial divorces have been made. e. Regulate Convention Conflicts of Laws and of Jurisdiction in Separation, Hague, Matters of Divorce and June interesting See mill, account of Nevada’s divorce written Bar, Ingram two members Ballard, of the Nevada The Business Migratory Nevada, Divorce in Contemp. 302; Law & Prob. cf. Bergeson, The Advertises, Divorce Mill id. at 348. to bind all others their decrees would endow constitutional sanctity a Gresham’s Law of domestic relations.
Fortunately,
today’s decision
go
does not
that far. But
practical
its
will
result
be to offer new
inducements
conduct by parties and counsel,
which,
any
type
other
of litigation, would
regarded
as perjury, but
is
not so regarded where divorce is involved because ladies
and gentlemen
indulge
it. But if the doctrine of res
judicata
jurisdictional
as to
facts in controversies involv-
ing exclusively private interests as
into
Full
infused
Faith and Credit
applied
Clause is
to divorce decrees so
as to foreclose subsequent
inquiry
jurisdiction,
into
there
logic
neither
nor
nor practical
reason
in not
desirability
taking the entire
judicata
doctrine over. Res
forecloses
relitigation if there
has been
opportunity
litigate
*21
once, whether or not it
of,
has been availed
or carried
as far
possible.
Sac,
as
County
Cromwell v.
94
S.U.
of
351; Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State
Bank,
15Quaere, today’s applies whether parte decision to ex Nevada by default, decrees general appear where the defendant later files a ance and jurisdiction the record is pro made to show nunc tunc. (1931-1941 Comp. Nev. Supp.) Laws § It is no means clear that the issue before the Massachusetts courts either of litigated these cases was or could have been Florida or Nevada. All that the Florida or Nevada courts could have jurisdictional determined was requisites whether the of State law process and of the due clause of the Constitution were met. And if a direct Court, attack on these decrees had all been made this tepid? it be be or pacific? may it Must it fierce be negative a of the testi-
Must there cloud witnesses .be enough? may single a doubter mony plaintiff, or judicata that res if establish the considerations Certainly ordinary situations private litigants as between public policy a validity against of divorce apply to the a rational differ- domicile, make it cannot bad question of domicile is contested ence that adjusted. The essence feeling rather than amicably aof decree through the device consent matter is be allowed policy a vital States concern to should If perchance Court. to be defied with the sanction of this fraud prove aof State to open right the Court leaves contest ordinary namely, in the that mock sense— de- today’s won claim falls that prearrangement —the uncertainty substantially cision will area of restrict the If Court avoid validity seeks divorces. legal con- party feigned result by holding question good his faith test cannot home State adjudication State, behind an another such domicile process point. we have could decided would been the due may satisfy process requirements, A where due and be valid rendered, jurisdictional requisites for full faith and still lack the Carolina, mandatory. Compare Williams v. North and credit to be (concurring opinion), 317 U. S. with Williams North Caro- lina, though S. 226. This is even the Florida and Nevada U. true appear jurisdictional prerequisites courts under characterize *22 respective Wade, 1004, 1007; domicile, their laws as Wade v. 93 Fla. 285; unwilling Latterner, may Latterner v. to Nev. since we be determining apply “domicile,” as loose a of in whether extrastate test mandatory, might properly is choose enforcement those States determining might granted in use what divorces be and effective Thus, point proceedings no in within their own at borders. opportunity Florida or Nevada in the cases was there instant an litigate acquired Mr. whether Mrs. Sherrer or Coe Florida domicile, respectively, or their divorces Nevada sufficient entitle recognition. to extraterritorial fraud and collusion still
holding encourage is bound to further.
In of the asserted considering importance whether the law is existing of marital suf- uncertainties status under to think justify result, important ficient it is suppose would quantitatively, dramatically. not One forty-eight diversity the divorce laws allow States, unwillingness and of most of them to an industry granting the few which make out of divorce impose policies upon others, their undermines the family marriages all structure and renders insecure previously persons divorced the United States. proportion people worry of divorced who have cause is small indeed. Those who were at home have divorced problem. spouse no Those desire to be rid of whose hardly coincided with shift of domicile will unrelated suspect where, usually true, be as is to which the State they easy required long moved did afford or divorces period. Actually, States, residence there are but five Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, easily than year’s divorces obtained on less one All residence.17 Indovina States Dalton, Statutes of Marriage-Annul- with Territories Annotations on (Santa 1945). Monica, ment-Divorce These five States only 24,370 accounted for but of the divorces 9% Dept, Commerce, national total. Statistical Abstract (1946) p. the United States The number granted Arkansas, Idaho, divorces Wyoming to indicate normal enough small incidence of divorce permanent among population, only their few tran- taking advantage sients their laws. Nevada virtually and Florida thus attract all the non-resident appears only allowing North Carolina to be the other State year’s residence, divorce on less than a but it does not allow divorce many of the usual causes. The Williams cases attest that its laws are not lax. *23 16,375 di- only Yet, them, business.
divorce between Ibid. of the total. granted vorces were 6% undoubtedly set- permanently people of were Some these to fear. Others States, nothing those tled to make their States, intending those may have moved to there, They permanent and have since remained. homes Faith Clause Full and Credit amply protected the all only persons at in- before decision. The today’s even temporarily left their minority that small who secure are offering quick of for a State —one home States few— Is easy one, departed. obtained their divorce, we must safe- security important to the Nation that so great major- at guard price depriving it even ity bargain-counter do not offer divorces States which right the laws domestic relations determine their applicable to citizens? desirability
Even a believer of easier divorce— bring our concern —this should that is not decision issue a way only por- It little solace. offers out small are unhappily sufficiently of those married who tion wealthy trip Florida, to be able afford a to Nevada or stay and six-week or three-month there.18 '’"" ques- course, Óf not determine what her States have disregard tion of domicile sister satisfy novo would not found. A trial de of this issue laid down second Williams requirements which we case, 325 S. at 236. Nor can Massachusetts make find- U. through is The easier it made for those who affluence are able disproportionately large legislation, to exercise influence on to obtain divorces, likely migratory of their the less it divorce laws desirable, liberalized, insofar that is deemed home States will Groves, Migratory Divorces, so Law & Con- as to affect all. See instances, past, temp. comparable For Prob. against poor application in the actual discrimination Hankins, Divorce, Dickens, Times, 11; Encyc. laws, Hard Soc. cf. c. 177,179. Sci.
ings on preclude by this which reexamination this issue Court, it, nor through prejudice in favor its own policies, strain the to tie facts find continuance of the parties between and But the in these itself. records justify cases do not conclusion Massachusetts been in its It is duty respect. remiss true that courts its a did not employ jargon formal and legal say that there awas presumption favor of the of'Florida or findings Nevada and that this presumption had been overcome But the evidence. the Constitution compliance, demands not a form of To words. ascertain whether in fact there is a saying real basis for accord not did proper to recognition findings, Nevada’s Florida’s we and just must turn to the records and discover for ourselves how much warrant for findings there was their domicile. petitioner respondent and Sherrer v. Sherrer 1930, in New Jersey married and to Mon- moved
terey, Massachusetts, they together where lived They until 1944. had two children. There was evidence relationship their less than harmonious became period, that Mrs. towards the end Sherrer a aby troubled infection and had been sinus advised physician Florida, and that she a Massa- go consulted In attorney leaving. chusetts about divorce before a March, take 1944, she Sherrer that she wished to told a trip to for take the Florida month’s rest wanted to along. children She later that she had intended testified stay, even but had go then to Florida to lied order His to obtain husband’s and the her consent. consent forthcoming. On necessary April 3, funds were Florida, along Mrs. children taking Sherrer and the left a a leaving trunk, small bag, suitcase and but behind housedresses, clothing. some of the much children’s They following day. apart- arrived the She rented an they Petersburg, occupied ment St. which for about cottage weeks, furnished then moved into three cottage. into furnished later another one departure, after Mrs. About week Sherrer’s at an acquaintance who least Phelps, previously Petersburg, St. hers, gone to knowing that she had after, frequently. her there, her soon and saw went met husband that she did On wrote to her April she for train him, money returned the go‘back care daughter older had sent. She sent her fare he job Phelps found em- and took a as a waitress. school *25 yard. in a lumber ployment for di- permits proceedings law institution of
Florida days’ fide the State. ninety vorce after bona residence State, 6, after her arrival in the July ninety-three days On had neces- attorney, Florida the Mrs. Sherrer consulted up, filed a for the sary papers drawn and libel day. Sherrer, receiving by mail, retained same notice appearance and counsel, general who entered Florida answer, allegations which denied Mrs. Sherrer’s filed as was on hearing to residence. The case set for Novem- On on scene. 9, ber 14. November Sherrer arrived the the stipulation, subject and his wife entered into a He court, providing custody chil- approval of the the him sum- during year during dren in school and her hearing, attorney vacations. At the Sherrer’s was mer in a present, and remained side room. The at- Sherrer did Mrs. evi- torney not cross-examine Sherrer or offer jurisdiction merits, as to or dence either other than stipulation custody of regarding the children. Sher- questioned rer was called into and as to courtroom ability to look after during his the children the school was year. hearing closed, up The held being decree deposition by No- pending filing Mrs. Sherrer. On 19, vember Sherrer returned to with the deposition children. On November was filed On petitioner December mar- the decree entered. Phelps ried couple up and the took residence in cot- tage which she and the previously occupied. children had
There they early February, remained until they when returned Massachusetts, for á few staying days at Monterey. Westfield then returning to Phelps’ father lived in Westfield, Phelps testified his father’s critical illness their A occasioned return. few days later, was Phelps papers $15,000 served with in a alienation of affections brought by action Sherrer. He pendency testified that of this action was reason for his remaining Massachusetts even after his father’s health become less many critical. trial was set months ahead, Phelps petitioner but and the did not return to Florida. Rent cottage on the Florida for a departure month their was following paid, but required, paid monthly it was on a basis. personal belongings Some behind Later, left there. Phelps the landlord informed petitioner and the cottage, would not continue later renting still they belongings Monterey. asked that their sent to had meanwhile out of
Sherrer moved the house which *26 petitioner formerly they and the lived in, he petitioner moved together. Phelps in, owned and the 1945, peti- a 28, and did not return to Florida. On June was filed in Berkshire Probate County tion Sherrer had de- for a forth that his wife setting Court decree her for living apart him he serted and that was from A a decree justifiable provided cause. statute such convey of dower empower realty a husband to free would 209, The § Mass. Laws c. rights. Gen. gone Probate Sherrer had not Court found Mrs. permanent it her home with the to Florida to make but Phelps, divorcing Sherrer, marrying meeting intention of Phelps, returning findings These Massachusetts. Supreme State. upheld by the Judicial Court of the in in 1934 v. were married
The in Coe parties Coe part spent large 1939, they Until City. New York only home, one owned travel, but had year each in also owned Coe Worcester, Massachusetts. Coe, regis- accounts, paid taxes, bank land, other maintained automobile, etc., all in Worcester. tered his apartment maintained an Coe also Beginning was con- City, much of his business in New York where return- usually during week, there He lived ducted. City In New York there on week ends. ing to Worcester friend. His Allen, secretary Dawn his lived one also appears It with Mrs. Coe deteriorated. relations principal his was period well, domicile during this he testimony His as to where intended in Worcester. own He contradictory. his was to make home at time York kept bank and most of his funds New accounts used address jury duty and did there. He his Worcester incorporating personal and when correspondence his corporation.19 judge trial found that domicile remained Worcester. filed January, 1942, petition separate
In Mrs. Coe for County Court. Coe support the Worcester Probate cross-petitioned peti- for On March divorce. Coe’s dismissed, Mrs. was granted; tion was Coe’s she appealed, per complaining $35 awarded week. She appeal pending, the amount. While the Coe left York, accompanied by for New Dawn Worcester May her left mother, Allen and New York on He Reno, Nevada, arriving there on June 10. lived at the Del Monte Ranch. He testified that he went there his asthma and tax to relieve because of Nevada’s liberal testimony gave conflicting laws. He also as to whether taxation, might regarded purposes For he well have been County State. Cf. Worcester Trust Co. in either as domiciled *27 Florida, Riley, Texas 292; U. S. U. S. divorce. On June get a went there order
he attor- his Worcester lawyer for whom he a consulted opened He memorandum. a divorce ney prepared safe-deposit box, registered and rented a bank account all in license, a driver’s and took out his automobile York ties with New did sever his other Nevada. He or Massachusetts. di- for proceedings institution of permits
Nevada law after days Forty-seven residence. vorce after six weeks’ divorce, complaint for State, Coe filed a his arrival Notice was fide residence. six weeks’ bona alleging Reno, engaged who followed to Coe, mailed to Mrs. Subsequently, complaint. to the attorney, and demurred agreement, a written entered into however, she and Coe $7,500, lump payment sum to Mrs. Coe providing for a answer September 19, she filed an per $35 week. On in his alleged Coe’s residence in which she admitted day, a cross-complaint. On the same complaint, and a adopted Coe, Mrs. and the court granted divorce was Coe married Dawn day, Also on the same agreement. Reno, returned to New days they later left Allen. Two and returned up apartment, his York, gave where Coe a house owned 1, residing on October at to Worcester himby there. Court of February 25, 1943, Supreme Judicial
On separate maintenance decree affirmed the Coe made no County Probate Court. of the Worcester or respondent under either that decree payments to the lump court, $7,500 than the that of the Nevada other May 22, 1943, respondent petition filed sum. On contempt. him Coe the Probate Court to have cited revoked because of the petitioned to have the decree supervening Nevada divorce decree. spent part Dawn pending,
While this was Coe and Ranch, at Monte near the summer of 1943 the Del *28 and lawyer divorce with Coe’s Nevada Reno, to confer Apparently, Ranch. purchase the to the negotiate exception of this the was made. With purchase the not continu- have resided at Worcester he and Dawn period, kept his bank accounts marriage. their Coe since ously paid and other poll his tax there, box post-office a more purchased In he February, 1944, local taxes. In various moved. expensive house, they into which he Worcester as his residence. papers, formal noted Court, basis on the 21, 1943, On October the Probate separate revoked its maintenance divorce, of the Nevada show lack respondent’s proffer The of evidence to decree. This rejected. was jurisdiction Nevada the court which Supreme Court, was reversed the Judicial ruling the contradicting allow evidence sent the case back to remand, On evidence finding of domicile. such Nevada gist was been summarized. taken, parties had been domiciled Probate Court found that trip throughout, Massachusetts and that Coe’s not Nevada was order obtain made findings upheld his These were change domicile. the Supreme Judicial Court. credibility were triers
Conceding matters of for the ample fact, appears to have the evidence to me every justify made, giving even findings weight contrary to the Nevada and Florida determinations contradicting on the those treating party burden jurors, as heavy. Judges, as most well as determinations naturally enough may differ to the of testi- meaning given and the to be I would mony weight evidence. touching on profitable deem it to dissent such issue unique particular My circumstances case. dis- agreement with decision of Court is to the not as evidence, what I weight of the but concerns take parties holding, opportunity litigate its question jurisdiction in Nevada and Florida fore- closed from If raising question later. the Court merely held that the evidence was not suffi-\ justify cient to \ findings, Massachusetts’ to what contrary j recited the decrees of Nevada and Florida, or, *29 added assurance that obligations recognition be ! honored, had required of the explicit Massachusetts court i j avowal of presumption in favor of the Florida and decrees, Nevada I should have remained silent. But the .j today’s crux of decision is that regardless of how overr: asserted', whelming evidence may have been that domicile the State offering bargain-counter divorces j sham, was a parties home State of permitted is not question if matter the form aof controversy has \ gone through. To canjapt-d such a I proposition assent. Court that have not stood the pDecisibns test of time have been not to due want of foresight by the prescient Framers of the Constitution, but to misconcep- tions regarding requirements. its I myself cannot bring to believe that Full Faith and Credit gave Clause the few States which bargain-counter offer divorces con- stitutional power to control policy the social governing domestic relations of the many which do States not.