Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Md. 127

Garner v. Garner

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 18, 1881

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1881-03-18

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. After the decree was passed the defendant filed a petition asking that the prohibitory clause be stricken out, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to decree such prohibition against her, she being a non-resident, and not having been lawfully brought into Court. The Court (Dobbin, J.,) overruled this petition and the defendant appealed.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-03-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 1993

1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

40188118901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Robinson, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court-.

¶2This is a bill by the appellee a citizen of this State, praying a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from the appellant. now residing in the City of New York, upon the ground of abandonment.

¶3In granting the divorce the Court below, in the exercise of the discretion vested in it by the statute of 1872, ch. 272, further ordered and decided that the appellant Wilhemina E. Garner, should not contract marriage with any other person, during the life-time of the appellee.

¶4It is conceded that the domicil of the husband is the matrimonial domicil, and that the Court had jurisdiction to grant the divorce; but it is insisted that so much of the decree as forbids the appellant from marrying again is a decree or judgment in personam rendered against the appellant, a resident of another State, and therefore void.

¶5This objection is we think well taken. To render a judgment binding, the Court must have jurisdiction over the person or subject-matter. Jurisdiction over the person can only be acquired by service of process of some kind, or by voluntary appearance. The process of a Court cannot be served beyond the limits of the State, and nonresidents are not therefore amenable to such process. Hence it is, that judgments in personam are not binding upon persons living beyond the limits of the State, unless they voluntarily appear and answer the suit.

¶6All the cases which recognize the jurisdiction of a State to determine the matrimonial status of its own citizens, although one of the parties live in another State, limit the *129exercise of it to the dissolution of the marriage. The decree in such cases affects only the status or marriage relation. To go one step further, and say the guilty party who is a non-resident and therefore heyond the process of the Court, shall not marry again is quite a different thing. Such a prohibition is not necessarily a part of the decree dissolving the marriage,- hut in the nature of a decree in personam affecting the rights of parties heyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

(Decided 18th March, 1881.)

¶7So much of the decree therefore, as prohibits the appellant from marrying again must he reversed.

¶8Decree affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

/56/md/127 · .json · Public domain