Waltz v. Waltz

Decided May 15, 1862

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1862-05-15

<p>If an applicant for divorce has been a Iona fide resident of the State for one year before filing his petition, and is a bona fide resident at the time of such filing, non-residence at the time of trial, will not divest the jurisdiction of the Court.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1915

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The only question in this case is, whether an applicant for divorce must not only be a resident in good faith of the county at the time the application for divorce is instituted, but also at the time of the trial. “The statute is as follows: ‘Divorces may be decreed by the circuit courts of this state, on petition filed by any person who, at the time of the filing of such petition, shall have been a bona fide resident of the state one year previous to the filing of the same, and a resident of the county at the time of the filing such petition.’ Acts 1859, 108. “We suppose this statute does not admit of any interpretation different from its literal reading; that if the applicant was in good faith a resident, at the time named, non-residence at the time of trial would not prevent the court from acting in the premises.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hill v. Hill

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hanna, J.

¶1The only question in this case is, whether an applicant for divorce must not only be a resident in good faith of the county at the time the application for divorce is instituted, but also at the time of the trial.

¶2The statute is as follows: “ Divorces may be decreed by the Circuit Courts of this State, on petition filed by any person who, at the time of the filing.of such petition, shall have been a bona fide resideut of the State one year previous to the filing of the same, and a resident of the county at the time of the filing such petition.” Acts 1859, 108.

¶3We suppose this statute does not admit of any interpretation different from its literal reading; that if the applicant was in good faith a resident, at the time named, non-residence at the time of trial would not prevent the Court from acting in the premises.

Per Curiam.

¶4The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded.