U.S. Supreme Court LOUGHRAN v. LOUGHRAN, 292 U.S. 216 (1934)

[Page 292 U.S. 216, 223]

over, that this was required by the full faith and credit clause, since the validity of the Florida marriage had been adjudicated by the Virginia decree of divorce a mensa et thoro.

First. Marriages not polygamous or incestuous, or otherwise declared void by statute,1 will, if valid by the law of the state where entered into, be recognized as valid in every other jurisdiction. Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76; Travers v. Reinhardt, 205 U.S. 423, 440, 27 S.Ct. 563. The mere statutory prohibition by the State of the domicile either generally of the remarriage of a divorced person, or of remarriage within a prescribed period after the entry of the decree, is given only territorial effect. Such a statute does not invalidate a marriage solemnized in another state in conformity with the laws thereof. [Footnote 2]

Second. We have no occasion to decide what the rights of the parties would be if it appeared that the plaintiff and her paramour, retaining at all times their domicile in the District, had gone to Florida for the purpose of evading section 966 by a marriage there; and had then returned to the District to live as man and wife. [Footnote 3] It is argued that marriage within the District would have been illegal because prohibited by section 966; and that a marriage which would be illegal if entered into within the District must be treated under section 1287 (D.C. Code 1929, T. 14, 5) as void, even if valid under the law of the state in which it was solemnized. But section 1287

[Page 292 U.S. 216, 225]

dence in Florida and the marriage there were not in good faith. [Footnote 4] But the bill alleged the good faith of the residence and marriage in Florida; and the answer contains no specific denial of that allegation. Nor does it contain any averment that the residence in Florida and marriage there were with the intent of evading the prohibition against remarriage. [Footnote 5] The Court of Appeals did not pass upon the issue sought to be raised. It expressly disclaimed deciding whether the Florida marriage was valid or what the effect of the Virginia decree was. And the question whether the marriage in Florida should be deemed void within the District because the parties went to Florida to evade the prohibition of section 966 was not presented by the petition for a writ of certiorari.

[Page 292 U.S. 216, 226]

District provides for forfeiture of dower in case of the wife's adultery during marriage,6 none denies dower to a widow because she had been guilty of adultery prior to the marriage with her late husband.

Section 966 is not extraterritorial in its operation. It does not purport to prohibit remarriage outside the District; and no other statute denies dower to a widow because by remarrying elsewhere she had disregarded the prohibition contained in section 966. It does not make remarriage a crime, or in terms impose any penalty, even if contracted within the District; and obviously it could not make criminal remarriage elsewhere. Nor does it in terms declare the remarriage void. Apparently, it is the law of the District that a remarriage elsewhere in disregard of the prohibition of section 966, even where both parties remained domiciled in the District, is not void ab initio, but, at most, voidable; and that a voidable marriage cannot be annulled after the death of either spouse. [Footnote 7]

[Page 292 U.S. 216, 227]

which the divorce was granted and the property was situated. [Footnote 8] Ordinarily the operation of a statute of descent and distribution is held not affected even by the fact that the death of the decedent was caused by a crime of the heir;9 and by the common law dower is not barred even by misconduct during marriage. Since, as matter of substantive law, the plaintiff is entitled to dower in property within the District, if the marriage in Florida was valid, and its validity was assumed by the Court of Appeals, we have no occasion to consider whether the decree in the Virginia divorce proceedings made that matter res judicata.

[Page 292 U.S. 216, 229]

The Court of Appeals, while it disclaimed acting on the doctrine of clean hands,10 declared that Olverson v. Olverson, 54 App.D.C. 48, 293 F. 1015, 1016 (decided by it in 1923), is decisive of the case at bar. But both the facts and the relief sought are different in the two cases. In the first place, the parties in the Olverson Case were at the time of the marriage domiciled in the District; remained so when they went to Baltimore for the marriage ceremony with the purpose of evading the prohibition of section 966; returned immediately thereafter to the District; and then lived in the District as man and wife. On the other hand, in the case at bar it does not appear that the plaintiff and Daniel were domiciled in the District at the time of the marriage; or that they went to Florida in order to evade the prohibition of section 966; or that during their marriage they lived in the District; or that they ever cohabited there as man and wife. In the second place, the Olverson suit was brought by a wife for a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro with a motion for alimony; and was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff could not 'ask the courts of this jurisdiction to relieve her of the obligations of a relation which she willfully and wrongfully assumed.'

The suit at bar was brought after termination of the marriage by death to enforce existing property rights growing out of the marriage in Florida and the decree entered in Virginia. It was not brought to enforce any transaction had within the District; nor was it brought to enforce an illegal contract; or to further an illegal relation. [Footnote 11] Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives. Neither the doctrine of clean

[Page 292 U.S. 216, 230]

hands, nor any kindred principle on which courts refuse relief, is applicable here. The decree of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause remanded to it for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed. Footnotes

Footnote 1 For collection of statutes, see Vernier, American Family Laws, 32, 45, 92. Compare The American Law Institute, Restatement of Conflict of Laws, Proposed Final Draft No. 4, March 22, 1934, pp. 88-95.

Footnote 2 See Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 18 Am.Rep. 509; Dudley v. Dudley, 151 Iowa, 142, 130 N.W. 785, 32 L.R.A. 1170; In re Miller's Estate, 239 Mich. 455, 214 N.W. 428.

Footnote 3 By the widely prevailing view, the marriage would, even under such circumstances, be held valid by the courts of the domicile in the absence of express provision to the contrary. For cases, see Joseph H. Beale et al ., Marriage and Domicile, 44 Harv.L.Rev. 501, 514-517.

Footnote 4 The argument rests upon the phraseology of the answer and the equity rules of the Supreme Court of the District.

Footnote 5 The allegation is 'that having openly and in utter disregard of the prohibition contained in said statute violated the terms thereof, she cannot now return to this jurisdiction and this Honorable Court and herein make application for relief with respect to the very situation and relationship which she could and did create only in direct violation of the prohibitory mandate of the statute.'

Footnote 6 The Code of the District 1929, title 14, 30, declares: 'If a wife willingly leave her husband, and go away, and continue with her advouterer, she shall be barred forever of action to demand her dower, that she ought to have of her husband's lands, if she be convict thereupon, except that her husband willingly, and without coercion reconcile her, and suffer her to dwell with him; in which case she shall be restored to her action.'

Footnote 7 Sammons v. Sammons (S.C.D.C.), 46 W.L.R. 39, 41. See Tyler v. Andrews, 40 App.D.C. 100, 104; Simmons v. Simmons, 57 App.D.C. 216, 218, 219, 19 F.(2d) 690, 692, 693, 54 A.L.R. 75; Abramson v. Abramson, 60 App.D. C. 119, 121, 122, 49 F.(2d) 501, 503, 504. Compare Dimpfel v. Wilson, 107 Md. 329, 68 A. 561, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1180, 15 Ann.Cas. 753; Bonham v. Badgley, 2 Bilman (7 Ill.) 622.

Footnote 8 Compare Putnam v. Putnam, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 433; Dickson v. Dickson's Heirs, 1 Yerg.(Tenn.) 110, 24 Am.Dec. 444. See 18 C.J., p. 859, 102.

Footnote 9 McAllister v. Fair, 72 Kan. 533, 84 P. 112, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 726, 115 Am.St.Rep. 233, 7 Ann.Cas. 973; Eversole v. Eversole, 169 Ky. 793, 185 S.W. 487, L.R.A. 1916E, 593; Gollnik v. Mengel, 112 Minn. 349, 128 N.W. 292; Holloway v. McCormick, 41 Okl. 1, 136 P. 1111, 50 L.R.A.(N.S.) 536; In re Johnson's Estate, 29 Pa.Super.Ct. 255.

Footnote 10 It had stated in Simmons v. Simmons, 57 App.D.C. 216, 218, 19 F.( 2d) 690, 693, 54 A.L.R. 75, that the Olverson Case rested on the doctrine of clean hands.

Footnote 11 Compare Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Union Pacific Ry. Co. (C.C.) 3 F. 423, 427, 428; Bateman v. Fargason (C.C.) 4 F. 32.