Cotter

Cotter v. Cotter

Good Law
139 C.C.A. 453·225 F. 471·4 Alaska Fed. 335·1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2114
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 9, 1915No. 2532California997 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wolverton, J.

(after stating the facts as above). In support of the demurrer, the defendant in error insists that the complaint is defective in that it does not show that the superior courts of the state of Washington have jurisdiction to grant divorces.

Formerly in England the ecclesiastical courts possessed exclusive jurisdiction over matrimonial causes, and such was the case at the time of the adoption of the American Constitution. Ecclesiastical courts have not been established in this country, and when it is said that the colonies and the states of the Union adopted the common law of England, it is not true that they adopted the ecclesiastical law pertaining to marriage and divorce, or the power incidental thereto of granting divorces in any form. Hence it is affirmed on authority that, in the absence of constitutional provision or express legislation, no American, tribunal has jurisdiction to grant a divorce. 14 Cyc. 581, 582; 9 Am. & Eng.Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) 739. But we think it will not be gainsaid that the jurisdiction to grant divorces is so generally conferred upon the courts of general jurisdiction in this country that it is the exception and not the rule that such courts are…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.