Commonwealth Ex Rel. Esenwein v. Esenwein
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kenworthey, J.,
In 1901, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the jurisdiction of a state court granting a divorce may be inquired into and, if it appear that neither of the parties had acquired a bona fide domicil in that state at the time of instituting proceedings the decree is open to collateral attack and a recital in the proceedings that such domicil existed may be contradicted. Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175, 21 S. Ct. 551; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14, 23 S. Ct. 237.
In 1906, it held that a state court, even of the plaintiff’s domicil, could not render a judgment…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Williams v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Haddock v. HaddockSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Fauntleroy v. LumSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Andrews v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Bell v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Esenwein v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. EsenweinSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Commonwealth v. BerfieldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Reiter v. ReiterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Larsen v. LarsenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Saunders v. SaundersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.