Williams v. North Carolina (1942)

Last updated

Williams v. North Carolina
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 20, 1942
Decided December 21, 1942
Full case nameWilliams, et al. v. State of North Carolina
Citations317 U.S. 287 ( more )
63 S. Ct. 207; 87 L. Ed. 279; 1942 U.S. LEXIS 2
Case history
PriorState v. Williams, 220 N.C. 445, 17 S.E.2d 769 (1941); cert. granted, 315 U.S. 795(1942).
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Owen Roberts  · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityDouglas
ConcurrenceFrankfurter
DissentMurphy
DissentJackson

Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the federal government determines marriage and divorce statuses between state lines. [1] Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix moved to Nevada and filed for divorce from their respective spouses. Once the divorces were final Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were married and then moved back to North Carolina. They lived there together until they were charged by the state of North Carolina for bigamous cohabitation.

Contents

Background

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, [2] lower than the 2015 rate of 16.9 per 1,000 and much lower than the 1980 peak of nearly 23 per 1,000. [3]

In 1916, Mr. Williams married Ms. Carrie Wyke in North Carolina and resided there until May 1940. In 1920, Ms. Hendrix married Mr. Thomas Hendrix and lived in North Carolina until May 1940. In June 1940, Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix moved to Las Vegas, Nevada and on June 26, each filed for a divorce from their respective spouse. [1] “The defendants in those divorce actions entered no appearance nor were they served with process in Nevada. In the case of defendant Thomas Hendrix service by publication was had by publication of the summons in a Las Vegas newspaper and by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to his last post office address. In the case of defendant Carrie Williams a North Carolina sheriff delivered to her in North Carolina a copy of the summons and complaint”. [1] Mr. Williams was given a decree of divorce on August 26, 1940 by the state of Nevada on the grounds of extreme cruelty, the court finding that 'the plaintiff has been and now is a bona fide and continuous resident of the County of Clark, State of Nevada, and had been such resident for more than six weeks immediately preceding the commencement of this action in the manner prescribed by law'. It was not until October 4, 1940 that Ms. Hendrix was declared divorced on the grounds of willful neglect and extreme cruelty and made the same finding as to this petitioner's bona fide residence in Nevada as it made in the case of Williams. On that same day, October 4, 1940, Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were married in Las Vegas, Nevada. Soon after their marriage they returned to North Carolina where they lived together as man and wife until a lawsuit was filed against them. [1]

Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were prosecuted under the North Carolina law for bigamous cohabitation. They pleaded not guilty by offering copies of the Nevada divorce decree and argued that the divorce papers and their Nevada marriage were legal in both Nevada and North Carolina. The state of North Carolina argued that since neither of the defendants in the Nevada divorce were in Nevada nor entered an appeal there, North Carolina would not acknowledge the divorce in Nevada under the rule of Pridgen v. Pridgen. [4] Furthermore, the state suggested that Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix did not go to Nevada to set up a bona fide residence but rather to take advantage of the laws of Nevada, where it is easier to get divorced than in North Carolina (as it only took 6 weeks to obtain a divorce in Nevada), to obtain a divorce through fraud upon that court.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in affirming the judgment, [5] declared that North Carolina was not required to recognize the Nevada decrees under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution (Art. IV, 1) by reason of Haddock v. Haddock . [6] [7] The inkling from the majority opinion that the Nevada divorces were untrustworthy suggests that the second theory on which the state tried the case may have been an alternative ground for the decision below. It was adequate to sustain the judgment under the rule of Bell v. Bell —a case in which the Court held that a decree of divorce was not entitled to full faith and credit when it had been granted on constructive service by the courts of Nevada, a state in which neither spouse was domiciled. [8] But there are two reasons why the jury did not reach that issue in this case. In the first place, North Carolina does not seek to sustain the judgment below on that ground.

Moreover, it admits that there probably is enough evidence in the record to require that petitioners be considered 'to have been actually domiciled in Nevada.' In the second place, the verdict against petitioners was a general one. [1] “It was there held that a divorce granted by Nevada, on a finding that one spouse was domiciled in Nevada, must be respected in North Carolina, where Nevada's finding of domicile was not questioned though the other spouse had neither appeared nor been served with process in Nevada and though recognition of such a divorce offended the policy of North Carolina.” [1] The ruling: both Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were “convicted of bigamous cohabitation” [1] and were sentenced to a term of years in a state prison. [1]

Subsequent developments

Once the decision was made in the Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina trial, the ruling stood for two years before being called back to trial in 1944 to reexamine the decision. [9] “The record from the 1942 trial did not present the question whether North Carolina had the power to refuse full faith and credit to Nevada divorce decrees because, contrary to the findings of the Nevada court, North Carolina finds that no bona fide domicile was acquired in Nevada.” [1] The Supreme Court ruled that, The Nevada divorces were valid, and must be given full faith and credit by North Carolina, if the travelers really were domiciled in Nevada when they received their divorces. However, domicile was a jurisdictional requirement for the Nevada courts; North Carolina might constitutionally retry the issue of the previous Nevada domicile, and, if its courts found that domicile lacking, might punish its straying residents. [10]

Since the Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina case from 1942, American law in this area has changed in two distinct but related ways. “First, all 50 states (as of 1985) now permit the dissolution of marriage on at least one ‘no fault’ ground. Second, in a variety of contexts the Supreme Court has recognized not only a constitutional right to marry but a broad freedom of intimate association.” It is unlikely that a state would go to such great lengths to preserve a marriage against the will of one spouse and that the trial would be given the same weight today that it was given in the 1940s.

Related Research Articles

Divorce is the process of terminating a marriage or marital union. Divorce usually entails the canceling or reorganising of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage, thus dissolving the bonds of matrimony between a married couple under the rule of law of the particular country or state. It can be said to be a legal dissolution of a marriage by a court or other competent body. It is the legal process of ending a marriage.

Legal separation is a legal process by which a married couple may formalize a de facto separation while remaining legally married. A legal separation is granted in the form of a court order. In cases where children are involved, a court order of legal separation often makes child custody arrangements, specifying sole custody or shared parenting, as well as child support. Some couples obtain a legal separation as an alternative to a divorce, based on moral or religious objections to divorce.

Common-law marriage, also known as non-ceremonial marriage, sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, de facto marriage, more uxorio or marriage by habit and repute, is a marriage that results from the parties' agreement to consider themselves married, followed by cohabitation, rather than through a statutorily defined process. Not all jurisdictions permit common law marriage, but will typically respect the validity of such a marriage lawfully entered in another state or country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Annulment</span> Legal procedure for declaring a marriage null and void

Annulment is a legal procedure within secular and religious legal systems for declaring a marriage null and void. Unlike divorce, it is usually retroactive, meaning that an annulled marriage is considered to be invalid from the beginning almost as if it had never taken place. In legal terminology, an annulment makes a void marriage or a voidable marriage null.

In law and conflict of laws, domicile is relevant to an individual's "personal law", which includes the law that governs a person's status and their property. It is independent of a person's nationality. Although a domicile may change from time to time, a person has only one domicile, or residence, at any point in their life, no matter what their circumstances. Domicile is distinct from habitual residence, where there is less focus on future intent.

The Divorce Act is the federal Act that governs divorce in Canada. The Constitution of Canada gives the federal Parliament exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the law of marriage and divorce.

Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

Incidental questions in private international law with respect to the problems and elements discussed below. In the Roman conflict of laws, an incidental question is a legal issue that arises in connection with the major cause of action in a lawsuit. The forum court will have already decided that it has jurisdiction to hear the case and will be working through the next two stages of the conflict process, namely: characterisation and choice of law. For example, the court may classify the cause as "succession", but it notes that the plaintiff brings the claim for relief as the deceased's widow. Before the court can adjudicate on the main issue, it must first decide whether the plaintiff actually has the status claimed, i.e. the incidental question would be the validity of the claimed marriage. The inconvenient reality is that many lawsuits involve a number of interdependent legal issues. In purely domestic cases, this poses no difficulty because a judge will freely move from one domestic law to another to resolve the dispute. But in a conflict case, the question is whether the incidental question is resolved by reference either to its own choice of law rules, or to the same law that governs the main issue. States have not formulated a consistent answer to this question.

In modern society, the role of marriage and its termination through divorce have become political issues. As people live increasingly mobile lives, the conflict of laws and its choice of law rules are highly relevant to determine:

Australian family law is principally found in the federal Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 as well as in other laws and the common law and laws of equity, which affect the family and the relationship between those people, including when those relationships end. Most family law is practised in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia. Australia recognises marriages entered into overseas as well as divorces obtained overseas if they were effected in accordance with the laws of that country. Australian marriage and "matrimonial causes" are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia and internationally by marriage law and conventions, such as the Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).

A putative marriage is an apparently valid marriage, entered into in good faith on the part of at least one of the partners, but that is legally invalid due to a technical impediment, such as a preexistent marriage on the part of one of the partners. Unlike someone in a common-law, statutory, or ceremonial marriage, a putative spouse is not legally married. Instead, a putative spouse believes themselves to be married in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of this person's reliance upon this good-faith belief.

Divorce mill is a term used for a jurisdiction that is frequently used by non-residents to obtain a divorce quickly. Relocating temporarily to another jurisdiction to obtain a divorce is referred to as migratory divorce. In the early years of the United States, after state legislatures gave courts the authority to grant divorces, some states had more lenient divorce laws than others. Divorce seekers began to travel to other jurisdictions when their home state's requirements were too onerous.

In the United States, marriage and divorce fall under the jurisdiction of state governments, not the federal government.

Marriage in the United States is a legal, social, and religious institution. The marriage age is set by each state and territory, either by statute or the common law applies. An individual may marry without parental consent or other authorization on reaching 18 years of age in all states except in Nebraska and Mississippi In Puerto Rico the general marriage age is also 21. In all these jurisdictions, these are also the ages of majority. In Alabama, however, the age of majority is 19, while the general marriage age is 18. Most states also set a lower age at which underage persons are able to marry with parental or judicial consent. Marriages where one partner is less than 18 years of age are commonly referred to as child or underage marriages.

Common-law marriage, also known as sui juris marriage, informal marriage, marriage by habit and repute, or marriage in fact is a form of irregular marriage that survives only in seven U.S. states and the District of Columbia along with some provisions of military law; plus two other states that recognize domestic common law marriage after the fact for limited purposes.

Cohabitation in the United States is loosely defined as two or more people, in an intimate relationship, who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by marriage nor a civil union.

Divorcein South African law refers to the termination of a marital union, the canceling of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage and the dissolving of the bonds of matrimony between a married couple. Divorce is unlike annulment, which declares the marriage null and void. Divorce requires the sanction of a court in a legal process. The legal process of divorce may also involve issues of alimony, child custody, child support, distribution of property and division of debt.

Marital rape is illegal in all 50 US states, though the details of the offence vary by state.

Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married. The term "palimony" is not a legal or historical term, but rather a colloquial portmanteau of the words pal and alimony. Nevertheless, numerous secondary legal sources refer to the term, and attempt to describe its influence and implications upon actual statute law.

Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a divorce decree granted by Nevada was not entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina because the Nevada court lacked jurisdiction over the parties. It was a follow-up to the Supreme Court's decision in Williams v. North Carolina (1942). The Williams cases are part of a long line of Supreme Court decisions grappling with issues of divorce jurisdiction and full faith and credit in a federal system. The ability of states to reexamine divorce decrees from other states on jurisdictional grounds was later limited by cases such as Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) and Johnson v. Muelberger (1951), at least where the defendant spouse had participated in the divorce proceedings.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ "100 Years of Marriage and Divorce Statistics United States, 1867-1967" (PDF). Centers for Disease Control. National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved January 25, 2018.
  3. ↑ Abrams, Abigail. "Divorce Rate in U.S. Drops to Nearly 40-Year Low". Time. Time, Inc. Retrieved January 25, 2018.
  4. ↑ Pridgen v. Pridgen, 203 N.C. 533, 166 S.E. 591 (1932).
  5. ↑ State v. Williams, 220 N.C. 445, 17 S.E.2d 769 (1941).
  6. ↑ Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906).
  7. ↑ Husserl, Gerhart (1946). "Some Reflections on Williams v. North Carolina II". Virginia Law Review . 32 (3): 555–581. doi:10.2307/1068335. JSTOR   1068335.
  8. ↑ Bell v. Bell, 181 U.S. 175 (1901).
  9. ↑ "United States Supreme Court". The New York Times. May 22, 1945.
  10. ↑ "The Aftermath of Williams vs. North Carolina" . Retrieved August 19, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.