Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

107 U.S. 319

Roth v. Ehman

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided October 1, 1882

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1882-10

Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of. Illinois. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 9–0 · Decided 1882-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1922

2 state decisions

2018821890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1This court has no jurisdiction to re-examine the judgment of a State court recognizing as valid the decree of a foreign court annulling a marriage.

¶2Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of. Illinois.

¶3The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

¶4Mr. Julius Rosenthal and Mr. A. M. Renee in support of the motion.

¶5Mr. O. M. Harris in opposition thereto.

¶6Mr. Chief Justice Waite

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.

¶8The only question in this' case controverted below was whether Madelaine Roth, the plaintiff in error, was the widow of John .George Roth, deceased, and that depended entirely on the validity of the decree of the Royal Matrimonial Court of Elwangen, in the Kingdom of Wurtemburg, annulling the marriage of the parties. The Supreme Court of Illinois decided in favor of the validity of the Wurtemburg decree, and consequently that she was not his widow and' not. entitled to dower in his estate, or to inheritance under the laws of Illinois. This presents no question of which we can take cognizance under sect. 709 of the Revised Statutes. No right, title, privilege, or immunity which could be claimed under the authority of the United States was involved, and the validity of no treaty or statute of, or any authority exercised under-,, the United States was drawn in question. Neither was there any statute or authority of the State relied on which was in conflict with the Constitution, treaties, of laws of the United States.

¶9Motion granted.

/107/us/319 · .json · Public domain