Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1925

Way v. Way

Way v. Way
Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided July 6, 1925 · ChiEE, Cothran, Gary, Marion, Purdy, Watts
128 S.E. 705; 132 S.C. 288; 1925 S.C. LEXIS 194 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. M.S. Connor and William C. Wolfe , for appellant, cite: Full faith and credit clause: U.S. Const. Art. VI , Sec. 1. Property of divorcee in this State: 44 S.C. 195 . Foreign divorce on constructive service: 44 S.C. 195 ; 201 U.S. 573 . Divorce extinguishes right of dower: Code of 1922, Vol. 3, Sec. 5243 and 5333. Case distinguished: 118 S.E., 178 . Messrs. St. Clair Muckenfuss, W.S. Utsey and W.M. Warren , for respondents, cite: Assertion of marital rights estopped: 125 S.C. 98 ; 61 Minn., 154 ; 19 C.J., 378, Notes 75-81; 15 R.C.L., 960, Sec. 436. Service by publication 19 C.J., 371, Sec. 839. Effect of total divorce: Code of Ga., 1911, Vol. 1, Sec. 2963. Estoppel against asserting invalidity of divorce: 125 S.C. 302 ; 61 Minn., 154 ; 19 C.J., Sec. 850 and 851 and Note 81.

Way v. Way

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

For the reasons assigned by the Master of Dorchester County, concurred in by Judge Henry, it is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary' and Mr. Justice Cothran concur. Mr. Justice Marion and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy concur in reult.

Concurring Opinion

Mr. Justice Marion

(concurring specially) : Mrs. Cochran, the appellant, was married to B. R. Way, deceased, late of the County of Dorchester, S. C. She obtained a divorce from Way in the State of Georgia — the judgment of divorce'being dated June 25, 1921. Way died July 15, 1921. Prior to that date the appellant had married Cochran. It appears from the record that, in the suit for divorce brought in the Georgia Courts, the defendant in that suit, B. R. Way, a resident and citizen of this State, was served by publication; that he was never a resident of the State of Georgia; and that no personal service of process was ever made on Way within the jurisdiction of the Georgia Court.

In those circumstances I am not prepared to agree to the Master’s conclusion that the Georgia divorce was such a judgment as the Courts of this State are bound to recognize as legal, valid, and binding “under the full faith and credit” provision of the United States Constitution. That judg *295 ment of divorce procured by the wife — Mrs. Cochran, the appellant — was properly held to estop her in this action from claiming as the widow of Way a distributive share in the personal estate of the deceased, Way. See Scheper v. Scheper, 125 S. C., 89; 118 S. E., 178. But further than that I am not prepared to go.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.