When both husband and wife are domi ciled in the state where the divorce is grant ed, the decree of divorce is without doubt valid everywhere; Leith v. Leith, 39 N. H. 38; Harding v. Alden, 9 Greenl. (Me.) 140, 23 Am. Dec. 549; Hanover v. Turner, 14 Mass. 227, 7 Am. Dec. 203 ; Garner v. Garner, 56 Md. 128 ; Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N. I. 237, 28 Am. Rep. 129; Jones v. Jones, 108 N. Y. 415, 15 N. E. 707, 2 Am. St. Rep. 447; Arrington v. Arrington, 102 N. C. 491, 9 S. E. 200; Hub bell v. Hubbell, 3 Wis. 664, 62 Am. Dec. 702; Cheely v. Clayton, 110 U. S. 701, 4 Sup. Ct. 328, 28 L. Ed. 298 ; Barrett v. Failing, 111 U. S. 524, 4 Sup. Ct. 598, 28 L. Ed. 505; Roth v. Roth, 104 Ill. 35, 44 Am. Rep. 81. See L. R. 6 P. D. 35.
If the court making the decree had juris diction, it will be held conclusive in other states ; In re James' Estate, 99 Cal. 374, 33 Pac. 1122, 37 Am. St. Rep. 60; People v. Allen, 40 Hun (N. Y.) 611; Hawkins v. Ragsdale, 80 Ky. 353, 44 Am. Rep. 483 ; Sbaw v. Shaw, 98 Mass. 158; and jurisdiction will he presumed ; Knowlton v. Knowlton, 155 Ill. 158, 39 N. E. 595; unless want of it ap pears upon the record ; Werner v. Werner, 30 App. 159 ; Collins v. Collins, 80 N. Y. 1; Morey v. Morey, 27 Minn. 265, 6 N. W. 783; or it may be shown as against Me record; Reed v. Reed, '52 Mich. 117, 17 N. W. 720, 50 Am. Rep. 247; Adams v. Adams, 154 Mass. 290, 28 N. E. 260, 13 L. R. A. 275.
As to the right of the wife to acquire a different domicil from that of the' husband for the purpose of jurisdiction in a suit for divorce, see Domicil..
There has been much difference of opinion as to the extra-territorial effect of construc tive service by publication as between states. If both parties are domiciled within the state the decree is of force in other states; Hood v. Hood, 11 Allen (Mass.) 196, 87 Am. Dec. 709; Burlen v. Shannon, 115 Mass. 438; Hunt v: Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217, 28 Am. Rep. 129; but if only one, the decree determines his or her status ; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 734, 24 L. Ed. 565; Shafer v. Bushnell, 24 Wis. 372 ; Adams v. Adams, 154 Mass. 290, 28 N. E. 260, 13 L. R. A. 275. Where the custody of children is involved it is held that con structive service of surdmons cannot give jurisdiction where the defendant and the children are out of the state and do not ap pear, even if their domicil is within the state ; De la Montanya v. The la Montanya, 112 Cal. 101, 44 Pac. 345, 32 L. R. A. 82, 53 Am. St. Rep. 165.
The view cited from Bishop concerning the extra-territorial operation of the decree under the constitution is held in Harding v. Alden, 9 Greenl. (Me.) 140, 23 Am. Dec. 549; Anthony v. Rice, 110 Mo. 233, 19 S. W. 423; Chapman v. Chapman, 48 Kan. 636, 29 Pac. 1071; Thompson v. Thompson, 91 Ala. 591, 8 South. 419, 11 L. R. A. 443 ; the contrary view is taken in Van Inwagen v. Van In wagen, 86 Mich. 333, 49 N. W. 154 ; Cook v. Cook, 56 Wis. 195, 14 N. W. 33, 443, 43 Am. Rep. 706; Flower v. Flower, 42 N. J. Eq. 152, 7 Atl. 669 ; Doerr v. Forsythe, 50 Ohio St. 726, 35 N. E. 1055, 40 Am. St. Rep. 703; Com. v. Steiger, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 334 ; [1893] Prob. 89.
Where the husband removed to Minnesota and there secured a divorce on constructive service of notice on the wife, who did not appear, it was held in a subsequent suit for divorce by the wife in New York that the Minnesota decree was invalid ; Williams v. Williams, 130 N. Y. 193, 29 N. E. 98, 14 L. R. A. 220, 27 Am. St. Rep. 517 ; and to the same
effect are O'Dea v. O'Dea, 101 N. Y. 23, 4 N. E. 110; People v. Baker, 76 N. Y. 78, 32 Am. Rep. 274. The ground of these cases is that the court rendering the decree under such circumstances, though having jurisdiction to establish the status of the parties in the state where the divorce is granted, yet has no jurisdiction over their status in New York; People v. Baker, 76 N. Y. 32 Am. Rep. 274; Williams v. Williams, 130 N. Y. 193, 29 N. E. 98, 14 L. R. A. 220, 27 Am. St. Rep. 517; Lynde v. Lynde, 162 N. Y. 405, 56 N. E. 979, 48 L. R. A. 679, 76 ton. St. Rep. 332; Atherton v. Atherton, 155 N. Y. 129, 49 N. E. 933, 40 L. R. A. 291, 63 Am. St. Rep. 650, which case was •reversed in Atherton v. Atherton, 181 U. S. 155, •21 Sup. Ct. 544, 45 L. Ed. 794, where it was held that actual no tice need not be given to a non-resident de fendant to bind her by a decree of divorce, if reasonable efforts to give her actual notice as required by the statutes of the state grant ing the .decree are made. The decision in this case was expressly placed on the ground that the suit was brought in the state of the matrimonial domicil. A later case in the su preme court held that the mere domicil with in the state of one party to the marriage does not give the courts of that state jurisdiction to render a decree of divorce enforceable in all the other states by virtue' of the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution, against a non-resident who did not appear and was only constructively served with no tice of the action ; Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 26 Sup. Ct. 525, 50 L. Ed. 867, 5 Ann. Cas. 1. The court in this case made the following classification (a) States where the power to decree a divorce is recognized, based upon the mere domicil of the plaintiff, although the decree when rendered will be but operative within the borders of the state, wholly irrespective of any force which may be given such decree in other states. Under this heading all• of the states are embraced with the possible exception of Rhode Island. (b) States which decline, even upon prin ciples of comity, to recognize and enforce as to their own citizens, within their own bor ders, decrees of divorce rendered in other states, when the court rendering the same had jurisdiction over only one of the parties. Under this heading is embraced Massachu setts, New Jersey (with the qualification made by the decision in Felt v. Felt, 59 N. J. Eq. 606, 45 Atl. 105, 49 Atl. 1071, 47 L. R. A. 546, 83 Am. St. Rep. 612), and New York. (c) States which, whilst giving some effect to decrees of divorce rendered against its citizens, in other states where the court had jurisdiction of the plaintiff alone, either place the effect given to such decrees upon the principle of state comity alone, or make such limitations upon the effect given to such decree as indubitably establishes that the recognition given is a result merely of state comity. As the greater includes the less, this class of course embraces the cases under the previous heading. It also includes Ala bama, Maine, Ohio, and Wisconsin. (d) Cases which, although not actually so decid ing, yet lend themselves to the view that ex parte decrees of divorce rendered in other states would receive recognition by virtue of the due faith and credit clause. And this class embraces Missouri and Rhode Island.