De La Rama v. De La Rama
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. This was a-suit brought in the Court of First Instance of the province of Iloilo by the appellant as plaintiff against her husband, the defendant, for a judicial separation or divorce a mensa et thoro, and equal separation of the property of the conjugal partnership, for an allowance to the plaintiff for her support during the pendency of the action, and for counsel fees, costs and general relief, upon the ground of…
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. This was a-suit brought in the Court of First Instance of the province of Iloilo by the appellant as plaintiff against her husband, the defendant, for a judicial separation or divorce a mensa et thoro, and equal separation of the property of the conjugal partnership, for an allowance to the plaintiff for her support during the pendency of the action, and for counsel fees, costs and general relief, upon the ground of the husband’s adultery and the public scandal and disgrace thereby brought upon the plaintiff. In his answer defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Brown
An important question of jurisdiction is presented by the record in this case. It has been a long established rule that the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction upon the subject of divorce, or for the allowance of alimony, either as an original, proceeding in chancery) or an incident of a divorce or separation, both by reason of fact that the husband and wife cannot usually be citizens of different States, so long as the marriage relation continues (a rule which has been somewhat ‘ relaxed in recent cases), and for the further reason that a suit for divorce in itself involves no…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Barber v. Barber Ex Rel. CronkhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- Kurtz v. MoffittSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Simms v. SimmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Cope v. CopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Idaho & Oregon Land Improvement Co. v. BradburySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Ankenbrandt Ex Rel. L. R. v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Glidden Co. v. ZdanokSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- In Re Theodore W. Spong, Debtor. Raymond J. Pauley v. Theodore W. SpongCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- Ohio Ex Rel. Popovici v. AglerSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Strong v. RepideSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.