Hood v. Hood

If the record of a case in this court fails to show the ground upon which a decree therein was rendered, the statement of the case and the opinion of the court printed in the authorized reports are admissible to show it. A decree of divorce, binding as between the husband and wife, cannot be impeached by her in a writ of dower against persons who purchased land from him during the coverture.

Writ on dower, dated October 30,1871, by Anna M. Hood, alleging that she was the widow of James M. Hood, and praying that her dower might be set off to her in land in Somerset, of which he was seised during the coverture. The tenants pleaded the general issue, and also a special plea that James M. Hood was divorced from the demandant on May 22, 1861, by a decree of the Circuit. Court of Kane County in the State of Illinois. At the trial in this court, before Wells, J., it appeared that the demandant was married to James M. Hood; that he died a year before this action was brought; that he was seised of the demanded premises while married to her; that she had never released her dower therein; that she duly made a demand for dower; that James M. Hood became insolvent in 1855; and that the premises were conveyed to his assignee in insolvency, and by the assignee to the tenants. The tenants put in evidence a copy of a decree of the Circuit Court of Kane County in the State of Illinois, dated May 22, 1861, granting a divorce to James M. Hood from the demandant an the ground of her desertion, and were also allowed, against the objection of the demandant, to put in evidence the record of this court in the case of a libel brought, at April term 1865, by she demandant against James M. Hood, praying for a divorce on the ground of his adultery. It appeared from this record that James M. Hood filed an answer, denying the adultery, alleging that the libellant had deserted him, and setting up his divorce in Illinois; that “ upon the issue thus found the cause came on for a hearing, and after the evidence was taken, was reported for the consideration of the full court; ” that it was argued to the full court; and that it was ordered, by rescript filed in the clerk’s office January 4, 1866, that the libel be dismissed. The rescript was not produced, but the opinion of this court in the case, reported 11 Allen, 196, was referred to by agreement, “ but to have such effect only as it is legally entitled to have.” The demandant then offered evidence tending to impeach the validity of the decree of divorce in Illinois on the ground that James M. Hood and the demandant were both domiciled in this Commonwealth, and that the decree was obtained by his fraud. The tenants objected that this evidence was not admissible, and contended that the demandant was estopped to deny the validity of said decree; but the judge ruled otherwise, and admitted the evidence. There were other questions raised in the case which it is not now necessary to report. The jury returned a verdict for the demandant, and the tenants alleged exceptions.