Legal Opinion

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Esenwein v. Esenwein

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 3, 1943No. Appeals, 233-235PublishedCited by 17 opinions

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

  1. Williams v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Haddock v. HaddockSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  3. Fauntleroy v. LumSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  4. Andrews v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  5. Bell v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1901

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Esenwein v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. EsenweinSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Commonwealth v. BerfieldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Reiter v. ReiterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. Larsen v. LarsenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  5. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Saunders v. SaundersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API