|
|
Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317 (1905)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317 (1905)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 198 U.S. 310, click here.
Harding v. Harding No. 222 Argued April 20, 1905 Decided May 15, 1905 198 U.S. 317
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
Pursuant to the statutes of Illinois, a wife living apart from her husband, both being citizens of Illinois, sued for separate maintenance alleging that she was so living on account of the husband’s cruelty and adultery and without any fault on her part. The suit was contested, and, after much evidence had been taken, the husband filed a paper admitting that the evidence sustained the wife’s contention, and consenting to a decree providing for separation and support on certain terms, and the wife filed a paper accepting the terms offered by the husband if the decree found that her living apart from her husband was without fault on her part. Such a decree was entered. Subsequently the husband removed to California and commenced a suit for divorce on the ground of desertion. The wife contested and pleaded the Illinois judgment as an estoppel, but the California court declined to recognize it on the ground that the issues were not the same, and also because it was entered on consent. The wife then defended on the merits, and judgment was entered in favor of the husband. Reversed on writ of error and held that:
Under the circumstances, the wife did not waive her right to assert the estoppel of the judgment by defending on the merits.
The issues involved in the Illinois case and the California case were practically the same, and, under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, the California court should have held that the Illinois judgment was an estoppel against the assertion of the husband that the wife’s living apart from him was through any fault on her part or amounted to desertion.
As under the Illinois statutes the judgment entered in favor of the wife was necessarily based on a judicial finding that her living apart was not through her fault, the papers filed were to be regarded as consents that the testimony be construed as sustaining the wife’s contention, and not as mere consents for entry of judgment.
As a judgment in Illinois entered on consent has the same force as a judgment entered in invitum, and is entitled to similar faith and credit in the courts of another state.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317 (1905) in 198 U.S. 317 198 U.S. 318–198 U.S. 324. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IX175J2E8Z2YHPI.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317 (1905), in 198 U.S. 317, pp. 198 U.S. 318–198 U.S. 324. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IX175J2E8Z2YHPI.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317 (1905). cited in 1905, 198 U.S. 317, pp.198 U.S. 318–198 U.S. 324. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IX175J2E8Z2YHPI.
|