TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Way v. Way

Way v. Way Et Al.

Way v. Way, 128 S.E. 705 (S.C. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 6, 1925
Docket
No. 11799
Judges
ChiEE, Cothran, Gary, Marion, Purdy, Watts
Citations
128 S.E. 705132 S.C. 2881925 S.C. LEXIS 194

Opinion of the Court — Watts

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.

Concurrence — Marion

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1941: 11948: 11977: 119412026peak 1941 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nimmer's Estate v. Nimmer47 S.E.2d 716 (S.C. 1948)
  2. Greer v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner15 S.E.2d 175 (W. Va. 1941)
  3. Smoak v. Smoak237 S.E.2d 372 (S.C. 1977)

Most recent

  1. Smoak v. Smoak237 S.E.2d 372 (S.C. 1977)
  2. Nimmer's Estate v. Nimmer47 S.E.2d 716 (S.C. 1948)
  3. Greer v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner15 S.E.2d 175 (W. Va. 1941)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Scheper v. Scheper, 118 S.E. 178 (S.C. 1923) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list