317 U.S. at page 297
In 1916 petitioner Williams married Carrie Wyke in North Carolina and lived with her there until May 1940.1 In 1920 petitioner Hendrix married Thomas Hendrix in North Carolina and lived with him there until May 1940.2 At that time both petitioners went to Las Vegas, Nevada.3
On June 26, 1940, each filed a divorce action in the Nevada court.4 The defendants in those actions entered no appearance and were not served with process in Nevada.5 Service by publication was made for Thomas Hendrix and a North Carolina sheriff delivered process to Carrie Williams in North Carolina.6 The Nevada court granted Williams a divorce on August 26, 1940, on the ground of extreme cruelty after finding that he had been a bona fide resident of Clark County for more than six weeks.7 The Nevada court granted Hendrix a divorce on October 4, 1940, on the grounds of wilful neglect and extreme cruelty after making the same finding as to her residence.8
Petitioners married each other in Nevada on October 4, 1940, and thereafter returned to North Carolina where they lived together until the indictment was returned.9 They were tried and convicted of bigamous cohabitation under § 4342 of the North Carolina Code, and each was sentenced for a term of years to a state prison.10 At trial they pleaded not guilty and offered exemplified copies of the Nevada divorce decrees and their subsequent marriage, contending the decrees were valid in North Carolina.11
The State contended that the Nevada decrees were not entitled to recognition because the defendants had not been served in Nevada and had not appeared there.12 The trial court instructed the jury that a Nevada divorce decree based on substituted service would not be recognized in North Carolina.13 The trial court also instructed the jury that petitioners bore the burden of satisfying the jury of the bona fides of their Nevada residence.14 The jury returned a general verdict of guilty.15
The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the convictions.16 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.17
Whether the full faith and credit clause requires North Carolina to recognize divorce decrees granted by Nevada courts to petitioners found to be domiciliaries of Nevada on the basis of constructive service?18
Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution directs that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the judicial proceedings of every other state.19 Congress has provided by the Act of May 26, 1790 that judgments shall have the same faith and credit in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from which they are taken.20 A divorce decree granted by the state of the plaintiff's domicile on constructive service is entitled to full faith and credit in other states.21
Yes. The petitioners went to Nevada in May 1940.22 They filed divorce actions on June 26, 1940.23 They obtained decrees after the Nevada court found them to be bona fide residents for more than six weeks.24 The decrees were granted on constructive service to the absent spouses who entered no appearance.25 These decrees validly altered the marital status of the petitioners in Nevada.26
The Full Faith and Credit Clause therefore requires North Carolina to give the decrees the same effect they have in Nevada.27 The contrary rule of Haddock v. Haddock is overruled because distinctions between it and prior cases rest on immaterial differences so far as the clause is concerned.28
North Carolina must recognize the Nevada decrees, and the convictions cannot stand.29
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Frankfurter concurs in the opinion but adds that the Court can contribute uniformity to the law of marriage and divorce only by enforcing respect for judgments rendered in accordance with settled procedural standards.30 He emphasizes that the duty of a state to respect the judgments of a sister state arises only where such judgments meet the tests of justice and fair dealing embodied in due process of law.31 The Nevada decrees satisfy those requirements here because North Carolina did not challenge their validity in Nevada.32
Justice Murphy dissents because the Court introduces an undesirable rigidity in the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to a problem on which the states hold varying and sharply divergent views.33 He contends that actual good faith domicile of at least one party is essential to confer authority on the courts of a state to render a divorce decree entitled to extraterritorial effect.34 On the record the petitioners did not acquire a bona fide domicile in Nevada but returned immediately to North Carolina after a brief absence.35
Justice Jackson dissents and states that he cannot join in exerting the judicial power of the Federal Government to compel North Carolina to subordinate its own law to the Nevada divorce decrees.36 He details that the Williamses and Hendrixes were long-time North Carolina residents who left briefly for six weeks in a Las Vegas motor court.37 They obtained divorces on minimal grounds with only constructive service and immediately returned.38
Jackson argues that Nevada lacked jurisdiction over the absent spouses.39 The decrees are not supported by good-faith domicile within Nevada.40 He concludes that the decision subjects the matrimonial laws of each state to important limitations and exceptions that impair state authority to protect their own citizens and policies.41
Whether a general verdict of guilty may be sustained when the case was submitted to the jury on an alternative constitutional ground that may be invalid?42
When a case is submitted to the jury on two theories, one of which is invalid under the Federal Constitution, and the verdict is general, the judgment cannot be sustained because it is impossible to determine that the conviction did not rest on the invalid ground, as held in Stromberg v. California.43
No. The State tried the case on two theories.44 One theory was the invalidity of the Nevada decrees under the rule of Haddock v. Haddock due to lack of jurisdiction over the defendants.45 The other theory was that the petitioners did not acquire a bona fide residence in Nevada.46 The jury returned a general verdict of guilty without specifying the basis on which it rested.47
Since the Haddock ground is invalid under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the judgment cannot be sustained.48
The general verdict cannot be upheld, and the case must be remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.49