Yarborough v. Yarborough, 290 U.S. 202 (1933)

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 290 U.S. 199, click here.

Yarborough v. Yarborough

No. 14

Argued October 12, 13, 1933
Decided December 4, 1933
290 U.S. 202

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Syllabus

1. A decree of a state court fixing the obligation of a divorced father for the support and education of his minor daughter held binding, under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, on the courts of another state to which the daughter and the divorced mother had removed and in which it was sought to force additional contributions from the father by attachment of his local property. P. 208 et seq.

2. By the law of Georgia, a decree in a divorce suit fixing the permanent alimony that the husband must pay for the support and education of his minor child may be entered by consent of the husband and wife before the rendition of the two concurring verdicts which the law makes necessary for the granting of total divorce; it becomes unalterable after the expiration of the term at which the total divorce was granted. P. 209.

3. The provision which the Georgia law makes for permanent alimony for the child does not vest a property right in him, but is an incident of the divorce proceeding. Jurisdiction of the parents in that suit confers jurisdiction over the minor’s custody and support. P. 210.

4. Hence, by the Georgia law, a consent (or other) decree in a divorce suit fixing permanent alimony for a minor child is binding upon him, although the child was not served with process, was not made a formal party to the suit, and was not represented by guardian ad litem. P. 210.

5. Appearance of both parents in the divorce proceeding in Georgia, the domicile of the father, gave the Georgia court complete jurisdiction of the marriage status and, as an incident, power to finally determine the extent of the father’s obligation to support the child, though the child was residing in another state when the judgment was entered. P. 211.

6. The fact that the child became a resident of the other state did not enable that state to impose additional duties on the father, who continued to be domiciled in Georgia. P. 212.

168 S.C. 46, 166 S.E. 877, reversed.

Certiorari, 289 U.S. 718, to review the affirmance of a judgment for support, etc., of a minor child.