62 U.S. (21 How.) 582 (1859)
Hiram Barber and Huldah Adeline Barber were married in the State of New York in 1840.1 Huldah, through her next friend George Cronkhite, a citizen of New York, applied for a divorce a mensa et thoro in the court of chancery for the fourth district of New York.2 The defendant appeared and resisted the application. The cause was heard on the pleadings and proofs, resulting in a decree that Hiram had been guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment and had abandoned and refused to provide for his wife.3
The New York court decreed that the parties be separated from bed and board forever, referred the cause to a master to ascertain alimony, overruled the defendant's exceptions to the master's report, and entered a final decree awarding Huldah $360 per year in quarterly installments for her support, with $960 due retroactively from July 1, 1844, plus costs, and future quarterly payments during her life, vested in her as separate estate.4 A transcript of the authenticated New York record formed the basis for the subsequent federal suit.5
Hiram left New York shortly after the decree without paying any alimony and without leaving assets there to satisfy it, establishing residence in Wisconsin.6 In April 1852 he obtained a divorce a vinculo from the Circuit Court of Dodge County, Wisconsin, without disclosing the New York proceedings.7 Huldah remained in New York as her domicil.8
Huldah, by her next friend, filed suit on the equity side of the United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin against Hiram, a Wisconsin citizen, alleging $4,242.15 due on the New York decree with interest.9 Hiram demurred on grounds including that the case was not within chancery jurisdiction and that relief could only be had in New York; the demurrer was overruled.10 He answered, admitting the New York decree and his nonpayment but asserting the Wisconsin divorce rendered Huldah a feme sole who could not sue by next friend and that any remedy lay at law.11 After a general replication, hearing on pleadings and proofs, the district court decreed $5,936.80 due for principal and interest to the date of the bill, ordering payment with costs.12
Whether a wife divorced a mensa et thoro may acquire a domiciliation in a State different from that of her husband to enable her, by her next friend, to sue him in a court of the United States having equity jurisdiction to recover alimony due under a decree rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter?13
A wife divorced a mensa et thoro may acquire a separate domicil from her husband.14 She may sue him by next friend in federal equity court to enforce an alimony decree from a state court with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.15 The separation discharges her duty to follow his domicil.16 The decree constitutes a judgment of record enforceable to prevent fraud.17
Yes. Hiram Barber and Huldah Adeline Barber were married in New York in 1840.18 The New York court of chancery for the fourth district entered a final decree separating them from bed and board after finding Hiram guilty of cruel treatment and abandonment.19 The decree awarded Huldah annual alimony of three hundred and sixty dollars vested as her separate estate.
Huldah retained her domicil in New York while Hiram left the state shortly after the decree without paying any alimony or leaving assets there.20 He established residence in Wisconsin.21 The United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin therefore possessed diversity jurisdiction because Huldah remained a New York citizen and Hiram a Wisconsin citizen.22 Equity jurisdiction existed to enforce the New York decree as a debt of record.23
The district court properly allowed Huldah to proceed by next friend.24 The judicial separation placed the parties in a relation of divided interests that precludes joinder.25 Equity has long exercised authority to compel payment of alimony decreed by a competent court when the husband has fled the rendering jurisdiction.26
A wife divorced a mensa et thoro may acquire such a domiciliation and sue in federal equity court to recover the alimony.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Daniel dissented on the ground that the marriage relation prevents the wife from being regarded as a citizen of a different state from her husband during the existence of the matrimonial tie, even after a divorce a mensa et thoro.28 He maintained that the unity created by marriage cannot be reconciled with separate civil or political capacities.29 The federal courts lack authority to regulate domestic relations or enforce alimony.30
Alimony is not an absolute debt but remains conditional on the wife's continuing performance of conjugal obligations.31 Because the wife sues by prochein ami she acknowledges she is not sui juris.32 The federal government possesses no commission of censor morum over the states.33
Whether a court of equity is a proper tribunal for a remedy to enforce payment of alimony decreed by a state court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of divorce?34
Courts of equity possess jurisdiction to enforce payment of alimony decreed by a state court with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.35 Such a decree is a judgment of record.36 Equity will interfere to prevent the decree from being defeated by fraud when the rendering court cannot itself enforce it summarily.37
Yes. The New York decree for alimony is a judgment of record.38 Equity courts of the United States may carry it into judgment in another state with the same binding force it possesses in New York.39 The district court correctly overruled the demurrer asserting that relief could be had only in New York chancery.40
The equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is uniform across the states and coextensive with that of England.41 No plain adequate and complete remedy at law existed.42 The Wisconsin Supreme Court had already determined that the proper forum was chancery rather than law.43 Equity jurisdiction is confirmed by the ancient practice of compelling payment of alimony decreed by an ecclesiastical court when the husband has left the jurisdiction.44
This principle is equally applicable when a state court decree is sought to be enforced against a husband who has fled to another state.45
A court of equity is a proper tribunal for such a remedy.46
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Daniel further dissented that the courts of the United States sitting in chancery cannot take cognizance of alimony at all.47 He reasoned that the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is bounded by the chancery jurisdiction of England.48 That jurisdiction does not extend to alimony because that subject belongs exclusively to the ecclesiastical courts.49
Neither legislative grant nor state court practice can enlarge the federal equity power beyond those settled English limits.50 The federal courts must follow the English chancery practice which excludes alimony decrees as a matter of settled principle.51 State court assumptions of jurisdiction provide no authority for expanding federal equity power.52