A HISTORY OF
Matrimonial Institutions

CHIEFLY IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES WITH AN INTRODUCTORY
ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE AND THE
THEORIES OF PRIMITIVE MARRIAGE
AND THE FAMILY

BY

GEORGE ELLIOTT HOWARD Ph.D.

PROFESSORIAL LECTURER IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AUTHOR OF "LOCAL
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES"

VOLUME THREE

CHICAGO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CALLAGHAN & COMPANY

LONDON
T. FISHER UNWIN, PATERNOSTER SQUARE
1904

Copyright 1904
The University of Chicago

Entered at Stationers' Hall

May, 1904

TO
Alice Frost Howard
HER HUSBAND DEDICATES THIS BOOK IN
GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF HER
AID IN MAKING IT

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME ONE

PART I

ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE AND THE THEORIES OF PRIMITIVE MATRIMONIAL INSTITUTIONS

PART II

MATRIMONIAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLAND

VOLUME TWO

PART II—Continued

PART III

MATRIMONIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

VOLUME THREE

PART III—Continued

PART III
MATRIMONIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

Continued

CHAPTER XVII
A CENTURY AND A QUARTER OF DIVORCE LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1776-1903

[Bibliographical Note XVII.—The session laws and compilations used in the preparation of this chapter are the same as those mentioned in Bibliographical Note XVI; and they are listed in the Bibliographical Index, V. The entire body of divorce laws enacted in each of the states and territories since 1775 has been examined. Among the decisions cited the most important are West Cambridge v. Lexington (October, 1823), 1 Pickering, Mass. Reports, 507-12; Putnam v. Putnam (September, 1829), 8 Pickering, Mass. Reports, 433-35; Desaussure's comments on the case of Vaigneur v. Kirk (1808), 2 South Carolina Equity Reports, 644-46; Justice Pope's opinion in McCrery v. Davis (1894), 44 South Carolina Reports, 195-227; Justice Nisbet's opinion in Head v. Head, 2 Georgia Reports (1847), 191-211; Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 86 New York Reports (1881), 18; Willey v. Willey, 22 Washington Reports (1900), 115-21; and Estate of Wood, 137 California Reports (1902), 129 ff.

For summaries of the divorce laws of the states at different periods see Lloyd, Treatise on the Law of Divorce (Boston and New York, 1887); Hirsh, Tabulated Digest of the Divorce Laws of the U. S. (New York, 1888; new ed., 1901); Stimson, American Statute Law (Boston, 1886), I, 682-715; Fairbanks, The Divorce Laws of Mass. (Boston, 1887); Neubauer, "Ehescheidung im Auslande," in ZVR., VIII, 278-316; IX, 160-74 (Stuttgart, 1889-91); Woolsey, Divorce and Divorce Legislation (2d ed., New York, 1882); and compare the works of Vanness, Noble, Convers, Snyder, Ernst, and Whitney mentioned in Bibliographical Note XVI. Whitmore has a helpful article on "Statutory Restraints on the Marriage of Divorced Persons," in Central Law Journal, LVII, 444-49 (St. Louis, 1903). Consult the literature described in Bibliographical Note XVIII.]

I. THE NEW ENGLAND STATES

During the colonial era the broad outlines and essential principles of the American divorce law, as it still exists in the various states, had already taken form. Long before the Revolution it was predetermined that a free and tolerant policy in this regard must prevail in the United States. The task of the legislator during the century following the birth of the nation has, in general, consisted in effecting a further liberalization in the causes of divorce; while at the same time the details of the system have been gradually wrought out. At the close of the period one finds much more elaborate and careful provisions regarding causes, residence, notice, alimony and property than at the beginning. An attempt will be made in this chapter to sketch the course of legislation in all of the states during a hundred and twenty-five years. Necessarily only the more salient features can be brought out. The beginning and the end, with some of the more important intervening changes, may be dwelt upon. The immense volume of laws, the constant stream of legislative enactments, the ceaseless tinkering of the statute-maker, the wearisome repetitions, render anything more than this very difficult and perhaps unnecessary. The most that one can hope for is to make the right impression; to disclose the true perspective by a judicious selection and grouping of the materials.

a) Jurisdiction; causes and kinds of divorce.—Through their silence on the subject nearly all of the first state constitutions left the power of granting divorces in the hands of the legislative bodies. In Massachusetts, however, the practice of the provincial period was temporarily continued. "All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony," declares the constitution of 1780, "shall be heard by the Governor and Council, until the Legislature shall by law make other provision."[1] Such provision was made in 1786. Yet six years thereafter Governor Hancock is obliged to return to the senate unsigned a bill "for dissolving the bond of matrimony between Daniel Chickering and Abigail his wife," remarking that it is unconstitutional and the proposed divorce is for a cause for which by law only a separation a mensa et thoro may be granted.[2] By the act of 1786 all questions of divorce and alimony are referred to the "Supreme Judicial Court holden for the County where the parties live," and its decrees are final.[3] Here the jurisdiction remained until 1887, when it was vested in the superior court with appeal to the first-named tribunal; and the power to hear petitions for separate maintenance and for the care, custody, education, and support of minor children was given to the courts of probate in the several counties.[4]

The statute of 1786 is reactionary with respect to the grounds of divorce. It is expressly declared that no divorce from the bond of matrimony, in the proper sense of the word, shall be allowed except for impotency or adultery in either of the parties. But in the outset it is necessary to be on one's guard against a confusion of terms caused by a retention of canonical usage. In this act, and for many years in the statutes of Massachusetts, as in those of some of the other states, the sentence of nullity of void or voidable wedlock, on the usual grounds of forbidden degrees, bigamy, or the like, is called "divorce."[5] For the first time in the revision of 1835 such unions, if solemnized within the state, are declared to be "absolutely void, without any decree of divorce, or other legal process;"[6] and this is typical of the tendency in other states[7] to adopt what is now the prevailing usage.[8]

The act under discussion was conservative in another important respect. Divorce from bed and board, which had crept into the judicial practice toward the close of the provincial era, was now allowed either partner by statute on the one ground of "extreme cruelty." Two new causes were added twenty-five years later. By the act of 1786, it will be observed, desertion and long absence, admitted during the earlier period as sufficient causes for dissolving the marriage bond, are not mentioned for either kind of divorce.[9] But in 1811 it was enacted that the wife may be divorced a mensa et thoro, whenever the husband "shall utterly desert" her, or whenever, "being of sufficient ability thereto," he shall "wantonly and cruelly neglect or refuse to provide suitable maintenance for her."[10] In all cases of separation from bed and board, as provided in 1829, the court may assign the wife all the personal estate which the husband received through the marriage, or such part of it as may seem just under the circumstances; while "all promissory notes and other choses in action" belonging to her before the marriage, or made payable during the coverture to her alone, or jointly with the husband on account of property belonging to her or debts due to her before the marriage, and all legacies to her, and personal property, which may have descended to her, as heir, or be held for her in trust, or in any other way appertaining to her in her own right, none of which things enumerated have been reduced to possession by the husband before the libel was filed, shall be and remain her separate property; and she is empowered to bring suit to recover it "in the same manner as if she were a feme sole."[11] No further important change[12] in the law appears to have been made before 1870, when divorce from bed and board was abolished.[13]

Chief interest, therefore, centers in the history of divorce from the bond of wedlock. To the two grounds of dissolution originally permitted new causes were added from time to time. Thus in 1835 the confinement of either spouse at hard labor under penal sentence for a period of seven years or more is declared sufficient for such a divorce; and a pardon granted to the guilty person will not work a restoration of conjugal rights.[14] Utter and wilful desertion for a term of five years came next in 1838;[15] and in 1850 a fifth cause, probably relating to the Shakers, was added. If either partner, it is declared, shall leave the other without consent and join a "religious sect or society that believes, or professes to believe, the relation between husband and wife void or unlawful," and there remain for three years, such act shall be deemed in behalf of the injured person a "sufficient cause of divorce from the bond of matrimony."[16]

A measure of fundamental importance makes its appearance in 1867. By it the divorce system of Massachusetts is completely reorganized. Not only is the way opened for presently doing away with separation from bed and board, but provision is made for suspending final action in any suit for dissolution of marriage by a device similar to that adopted in the English statute of 1860. The distinction between the "decree nisi" and the "decree absolute" was then introduced. "Decrees for divorce from the bond of matrimony may in the first instance be decrees nisi, to become absolute after the expiration of such time, not being less than six months from the entry thereof, as the court shall, by general or special orders, direct. At the expiration of the time assigned, on motion of the party in whose favor the decree was rendered, which motion may be entertained by any judge in term or vacation, the decree shall be made absolute, if the party moving shall have complied with the orders of the court, and no sufficient cause to the contrary shall appear." The orders of the court referred to require the person in whose favor a decree nisi has been rendered to publish at his own cost, in one or more newspapers, designated by the court, the fact of granting of the decree together with its terms and such other notice as the court may direct.[17] It will be observed that there is no express provision for "intervention," as in England by a private citizen or the Queen's proctor.[18] The institution of the decree nisi gave the legislator thereafter a great deal of trouble. Statute after statute was enacted to alter, extend, or repeal its provisions. These it would be useless to dwell upon, even if the import of some of them could readily be understood.[19] After thirty years of tinkering and experiment, the law now stands in substance about as it was first made. By the act of May 2, 1893, all decrees of divorce are in the first instance to be decrees nisi, without further proceedings "to become absolute after the expiration of six months;" unless the court on the application of some interested person otherwise orders.[20] The requirement of publication in the newspapers at the expense of the petitioner is not retained.

The introduction of the decree nisi in 1867, and the abrogation of the decree from bed and board in 1870, led at once to an extension of the causes of divorce from the bond of marriage. In addition to the five grounds already existing, a statute of the last-named year authorizes a full divorce for "extreme cruelty," "gross and confirmed habits of intoxication contracted after marriage," or "cruel or abusive treatment by either of the parties," and "on the libel of the wife, when the husband, being of sufficient ability, grossly or wantonly and cruelly refuses or neglects to provide suitable maintenance for her." Several of these causes, it will be noticed, had already existed as grounds for separation from bed and board, and were now merely transferred to full divorce. "Utter desertion," first allowed in 1838, likewise appears in this act as a new cause; but it is so only for the reason that all limitation as to the term of desertion is now omitted.[21] But in 1873 the period was fixed at three years,[22] and this term is retained in the present law.[23] Finally in 1889 dissolution of wedlock is granted for "gross and confirmed drunkenness" caused "by the voluntary and excessive use of opium or other drugs."[24] By the omission of one, the modification and combination of others, these ten causes have now been reduced to seven. By the present law a full divorce, to be a decree nisi in the first instance, may be granted for (1) adultery; (2) impotency; (3) utter desertion for three years; (4) gross and confirmed habits of intoxication caused by the voluntary and excessive use of intoxicating liquors, opium, or other drugs; (5) cruel and abusive treatment; (6) on the libel of the wife, if the husband, being of sufficient ability, grossly or wantonly and cruelly refuses or neglects to provide suitable maintenance for her; (7) when either spouse has been sentenced to confinement at hard labor for life or for five years or more.[25]

The century's legislation in the other New England states regarding the causes of divorce shows important differences in details and in the rate of progress; but the general tendency and the final result are much the same. For a short period previous to 1784 the legislature of New Hampshire exercised the right of granting divorces from the marriage bond.[26] The constitution of that year, following the example of Massachusetts, put a stop to the practice.[27] So by the act of February 17, 1791, which determined the general character of the divorce laws of that state for half a century, jurisdiction is vested in the superior court of judicature, where, under sanction of the constitution[28] of 1792, it remained until 1855, when it was transferred to the supreme court.[29] In the outset the laws of New Hampshire are more liberal in this regard than those of Massachusetts, and the development is more rapid. By the act of 1791, just mentioned, a divorce a vinculo may be granted for the impotency, adultery, extreme cruelty, or three years' absence of either spouse; and to the wife when the husband wilfully abandons her for three years, refusing to provide.[30] But, it should be observed, separation from bed and board is not recognized. This law stood unaltered until 1839, when, in addition to the causes already assigned, a divorce is authorized for three years' wilful desertion or refusal to cohabit by either person, if the cause continues at the time of petition.[31]

The next year a broad step in advance was taken. In addition to the existing causes, five[32] new and important grounds were at once introduced. A divorce may be granted in favor of the "innocent party" when the other is convicted and actually imprisoned for a felony; or becomes a habitual drunkard and so continues for three years; or "so treats the other, as seriously to injure health, or endanger reason;" or "when the conduct of either party shall be so gross, wicked and repugnant to the marriage covenant, as to occasion the separation of the other for the space of three years."[33] This last clause is omitted from the revised statutes of 1842. But among the twelve grounds there enumerated two new ones appear. As by the Massachusetts law of 1850, divorce is now granted either person when the other joins and remains three years with a religious sect or society "professing to believe the relation of husband and wife unlawful;" or to the "wife of any alien or citizen of another state, living separate," when she has resided in the commonwealth three years, the husband "having left the United States with the intention of becoming a citizen of some foreign country, and not having during that time" returned to "claim his marital rights," nor having made suitable provision for her support.[34] With the subsequent addition of two more causes the tale is complete. Since 1854 any "citizen" may claim a divorce when without his consent the wife willingly absents herself "for three years together;" or when in like manner she has "gone to reside beyond the limits" of the state and there remained ten years together without returning to claim her marriage rights.[35] These fourteen general grounds of divorce still appear in the statute-book;[36] but it should be noted that not less than seven of them have to do with absence or desertion of one or the other of the persons under various conditions.

At the close of the colonial era and until 1850, it will be remembered,[37] the legislature of Connecticut continued to grant divorces on various grounds; but jurisdiction in most cases was exercised by the superior court,[38] where it still remains.[39] Legislative divorce is not prohibited by the constitution; and it appears to be still permitted by the law. A recent act provides that "whenever any petition for divorce shall have been referred to any committee of the general assembly, such committee may give to the attorney general reasonable notice of all hearings on such petition, and he shall thereupon take such action as he shall deem to be just and equitable in the premises, and he shall appear before such committee ... whenever in his opinion justice so requires."[40] Since 1667, as elsewhere seen, divorce from the bond of wedlock had been granted for adultery, fraudulent contract, wilful desertion for three years, and for seven years' absence without word. To these grounds, in 1843, "habitual intemperance" and "intolerable cruelty" were added.[41] Three more new causes followed in 1849. Divorce was then sanctioned for sentence to imprisonment for life; "infamous crime involving a violation of conjugal duty;" and for "any such misconduct ... as permanently destroys the happiness of the petitioner, and defeats the purpose of the marriage relation."[42] The remarkable "omnibus" clause last quoted was not repealed until 1878.[43] The number of causes was thus reduced to eight, and thereafter no further changes seem to have been made.[44]

Throughout the century the supreme court of Rhode Island has exercised jurisdiction in cases of divorce and alimony,[45] although until 1851, as elsewhere explained, the legislature retained a share in this power. At the beginning of the period a marriage might be dissolved for (1) impotency, (2) adultery, (3) extreme cruelty, (4) wilful desertion for five years, (5) the husband's neglect or refusal to provide, or (6) for any other "gross misbehaviour and wickedness in either of the parties, repugnant to and in violation of the marriage covenant."[46] The last clause is surely broad enough, and no further ground of separation was found necessary until 1844. In that year (7) "continued drunkenness" is added.[47] Seven years later the court is given discretionary power to dispense with proof of full five years' desertion and to grant relief in less time.[48] Finally the extreme limit of modern legislation is reached in allowing (8) a decree when either spouse is guilty of "habitual, excessive, and intemperate use of opium, morphine, or chloral."[49] In 1902 the fifth cause in the above series was modified, a full divorce being then authorized for the husband's neglect and refusal to provide his wife with necessaries for at least one year.[50] So the century, which began with six grounds, ends with but two new causes for the dissolution of wedlock. In the meantime, however, we have a rare example of reactionary legislation. In 1882 the policy of nearly two hundred and fifty years was reversed.[51] It was then provided that in future "divorce from bed, board, and cohabitation, until the parties be reconciled, may be granted for any of the causes for which by law a divorce from the bond of marriage may be decreed, and for such other causes as may seem to require the same."[52] This sweeping provision is still in force.[53]

The first word in the history of divorce legislation for Vermont appears in the records of the "assumption" period. In 1779 the "representatives of the freemen" authorize the superior court to grant dissolution of the bond of marriage for the same four causes allowed at that time by the Connecticut laws, but by implication only the aggrieved person is permitted to remarry.[54] This restriction does not appear in the statutes enacted after the attainment of statehood. By these the supreme court may grant either spouse a decree for impotence, adultery, intolerable severity, three years' wilful desertion with total neglect of duty, or for the usual term of long absence unheard of.[55] The same grounds are retained in 1805, but with one important modification. In the case of "intolerable severity" it is left optional with the court whether the decree shall be from bed and board or from the marriage bond.[56] This provision, however, was short-lived, for it seems to have been repealed in 1807.[57] The number of causes of divorce a vinculo in 1839 has increased to six, but one old ground—impotence has given place to two new ones—actual confinement on a criminal sentence for three years or more, and gross, wanton, and cruel neglect of the husband to provide when he is able.[58] By the existing law the same six causes are expressly recognized.[59] But the statute contemplates divorce on still other grounds; for it is provided that libels for causes other than those named shall be tried in the county where the persons or one of them resides.[60] The last word of the period is retrogressive, decrees from bed and board being restored after an interval of almost exactly one hundred years. By the act of November 24, 1896, such separations, "forever or for a limited time," are authorized, as in Rhode Island, "for any of the causes for which a divorce from the bond of matrimony may be declared."[61] Jurisdiction is now vested in the county courts, each held by an assigned judge of the supreme court, who may try questions of fact as well as of law.[62]

Very naturally the first divorce legislation of Maine is based largely upon the contemporary laws of Massachusetts; and her policy in this regard since the attainment of statehood in 1820 has developed on lines parallel to those followed by the parent commonwealth, although there are some interesting divergences in matters of detail. The statutes of 1821 embody the Massachusetts law of 1786, together with such subsequent legislation as was still in force. Jurisdiction is vested in the supreme judicial court. Divorce from the bond of marriage is allowed for the same two causes named in that act. Separation from bed and board for cruelty, utter desertion, and neglect to provide is authorized, just as in Massachusetts after 1811,[63] and this kind of divorce existed until 1883. Three new grounds for dissolving marriage were allowed in 1830. These were five years' wilful desertion, uniting with the society called Shakers, and sentence to state's prison—in each of the latter two cases the term being likewise five years.[64] To these were subsequently added fraudulent contract and three years' habitual drunkenness such as to incapacitate either spouse from taking care of the family.[65]

A radical change was made in 1847. All the foregoing causes were at once superseded by a sweeping provision which is without parallel in the previous history of New England. By an act of that year, amended in one particular in 1849, any justice of the supreme judicial court, at any term held in the county of the parties, may grant decrees of divorce from the bond of wedlock, when "in the exercise of a sound discretion" he may "deem the same reasonable and proper, conducive to domestic harmony, and consistent with the peace and morality of society."[66] Moreover, to understand the full import of this law we must take into account an enactment of 1850. In no case is the libellant then to be "restricted to the proof of causes happening within the state," or where either of the persons is "residing within the state," but he "may allege and prove any facts tending to show that the divorce would be" just according to the provision of the law in question.[67] The act of 1847 remained in force until 1883,[68] when a new statute appeared which completely transformed the divorce system of Maine. Seven causes of dissolution a vinculo are prescribed. These are (1) adultery; (2) impotence; (3) extreme cruelty; (4) utter desertion for three years; (5) gross and confirmed habits of intoxication; (6) cruel and abusive treatment; and (7) gross, cruel, and wanton neglect or refusal of the husband, being able, to provide for the wife.[69] At the same time the decree from bed and board is abolished; and the decree nisi is instituted in practically the same form as in Massachusetts.[70] In 1897 a modified provision as to residence was adopted, and two years later the law took its present form. The same seven causes sanctioned by the act of 1883 are retained, except that under the fifth head the qualifying words are added, "from the use of intoxicating liquors, opium, or other drugs."[71]

b) Remarriage, residence, notice, and miscellaneous provisions.—The character of a divorce law does not, of course, depend wholly upon the number of causes for separation allowed, but in large measure upon the conditions under which the decree is granted and the safeguards provided to prevent hasty or clandestine action. Whether or not either or both of the divorced persons shall be allowed to contract further marriage, and on what terms, has always been an important question. The more general tendency of modern legislation, in the United States and elsewhere, is to allow entire freedom in this regard, except for a short period after the decree. But in New England during the century the matter has been dealt with in various ways. Thus in Massachusetts, for more than fifty years after the Revolution, the guilty party to a complete divorce was absolutely incapable of contracting a legal marriage. This doctrine is established by later judicial construction of the act of February 17, 1785, in connection with that of March 16, 1786. "We think it very clear," declares Chief Justice Parker, interpreting these laws in 1823, that "the marriage of the guilty party, after a divorce a vinculo for the cause of adultery, if contracted within this state, would be unlawful and void. The statutes which we think must have this construction are not expressed in very intelligible terms, but, on close examination, we think the intention of the legislature cannot be mistaken."[72] In this decision the court further raises one of the gravest difficulties of divorce legislation in the United States. The marriage in another state of the guilty party to a divorce in Massachusetts, under the laws just considered, is held to be valid, if such marriage is not forbidden in the state where the new marriage is contracted.[73] But will such a marriage be good in Massachusetts, should the persons at once return to that commonwealth? This important question, left in doubt by Chief Justice Parker, was settled in 1829. In the case of Putnam v. Putnam the court decided that if a man, "being a resident in this state for the sake of evading the law, goes into a neighboring state where such a marriage is valid, and is there married and immediately returns and continues to reside here, the marriage is valid here, and after his death his widow is entitled to dower in his estate."[74]

Gradually the stringency of the early Massachusetts rule was relaxed. An act of 1841 declares that whenever a divorce from the bond of matrimony "shall be decreed for any of the causes allowed by law, the guilty party shall be debarred from contracting marriage during the life-time" of the other, subject for disobedience to the penalty prescribed for "polygamy."[75] Twelve years later, by leave of the court, in case of divorce for desertion, the offending spouse is allowed to remarry.[76] A further step is taken in 1855. In all cases, except for adultery, the court is then empowered, on petition and proper notice, to allow the person against whom a decree has been granted to marry again.[77] In 1864 a new rule appears. Three years must now elapse in all cases, not excepting a decree for adultery, before such permission may be granted.[78] Still later all restriction as to time is removed,[79] but as the law now stands, the offending person, without petition to the Court, may again marry after an interval of two years from the date of the absolute decree.[80]

The early laws of Maine show no restraints upon remarriage after divorce, but since 1883 the Massachusetts precedent has been followed, with some interesting variations. In case of collusion, where both persons are guilty of adultery, no separation will be allowed. After obtaining the final decree, the person in whose favor it is granted may not marry within two years without the court's permission. Within that period the adverse party is absolutely forbidden to remarry; nor may he do so thereafter without the court's consent.[81] There is also a unique provision for a new trial. Within three years after a judgment has been rendered, a rehearing as to divorce may be had in case the persons have not cohabited nor either of them contracted a new marriage during the period. Moreover, if either has married again, such new trial may be "granted as to alimony or specific sum decreed" when "it appears that justice has not been done through fraud, accident, mistake, or misfortune."[82]

During the "assumption" period the popular assembly of Vermont followed the Connecticut rule as it then stood, allowing only the innocent person to contract a new marriage.[83] But from 1797 onward the laws of the state grant entire freedom to either spouse in this regard.[84] At present the "libellee" is not permitted "to marry a person other than the libellant for three years," unless the latter dies.[85]

The other states have been less conservative. By the New Hampshire law of 1840, already noticed, divorce from the bond of marriage is allowed to the "innocent party" in case of felony, drunkenness, and the other causes there assigned.[86] This provision is still retained;[87] but either person may remarry. So also by the Connecticut law previous to 1849 it is the "aggrieved" who is to be counted as "single" and able to marry, while at present no such limitation appears. Rhode Island has been even more liberal. At no time during the century, apparently, has the legislature placed any conditions upon the remarriage of either party to a divorce decreed for any cause, except that in 1902 it was provided that no decree shall become final and operative until six months after trial and decision.[88]

Clandestine divorce is an evil as notorious, if not so harmful, as clandestine marriage. To prevent it the New England states have been fairly prudent in their regulation of "residence" and "notice." By the existing law of Massachusetts, a divorce will be granted for any lawful cause, occurring in the state or elsewhere, when the libellant has lived for five years in the commonwealth; or, when the parties were inhabitants of the state at the time of the marriage, if the libellant has been such an inhabitant for three years before the libel was filed, provided neither person came into the state for the purpose. With this exception, as expressly provided in the statute, a divorce will not be granted for any cause, if the parties have never lived together as man and wife in the commonwealth; nor for any cause occurring in another state or country, unless, before it occurred, they had so lived together in the commonwealth, and one of them was there living at the time it took place. A divorce lawfully decreed in another state or country is recognized as valid. On the other hand, when an inhabitant of the commonwealth goes outside the state to obtain a divorce for a cause which occurred in the state while the persons there resided, or for a cause which would not be recognized as lawful therein, the "divorce so obtained shall be of no force or effect" in the commonwealth.[89] Proceedings for a divorce are not barred, however, when the "libellee has been continuously absent for such a period of time and under such circumstances as would raise a presumption of death."[90]

Similar provisions exist in the other states, although sometimes they are less severe. The New Hampshire court has jurisdiction in matters of divorce under three alternate conditions: (1) when both parties are domiciled in the state when the libel is filed; (2) when the plaintiff is so domiciled and the defendant is personally served with process in the state; and (3) when either of the parties is domiciled in the state at the commencement of the suit, and has actually resided there for the year preceding.[91] In Rhode Island the term of prior residence for the petitioner is two years.[92] As early as 1805 in Vermont a three-years' residence was required in order to obtain a divorce; and a decree would not be granted for any cause occurring before the applicant became a resident of the state.[93] The term was reduced to one year in 1807.[94] As the law stood in 1863, the requirement as to residence was still defective. "Such divorce for adultery, intolerable severity, and wilful desertion for three years may be granted when the causes happened while residing in another state or country if the libellant has resided in the state two years previous to the term of court to which the petition is preferred."[95] An attempt was made in 1878 to put a check upon the increasing number of divorces by prescribing more careful conditions. No divorce is henceforth to "be decreed for any cause, if the parties have never lived together as husband and wife" in the state, nor unless the libellant shall have resided there "one full year next preceding the filing of the libel in court." Furthermore, no divorce may be granted for any cause "which shall have accrued in any other state or country, unless one of the parties was then living in the state, and unless before such cause accrued the parties had lived together in this state as husband and wife.[96] In substance this law is still in force, though the present provisions are more precise. A divorce may not be granted "for any cause which accrued in another state or country before the parties lived together in this state as husband and wife, and while neither party was a resident of this state, unless the libellant shall have resided in this state at least one year and in the county where the libel is preferred at least three months next before the term of the court to which the libel is preferred."[97] The statutes of Maine authorize divorce for any legal cause, if the persons were married in the state; or if they cohabited there after marriage; or if the libellant resided in the state when the cause of action occurred, or had so resided for one year prior to the commencement of the suit; or if the libellee is a resident of the state when suit is brought.[98] With regard to foreign divorces and divorces obtained outside the state by inhabitants thereof, the law of Maine is identical with that of Massachusetts.[99] Throughout the century Connecticut has maintained a high standard in this regard. With some qualifications, three years' prior residence has always been required of a petitioner coming into the state from abroad.[100] As the law now stands, a complaint will be dismissed unless the complainant has continuously resided in the state for the preceding three years, except when the cause of divorce arose subsequently to his removal into the same; or unless the defendant had in like manner there resided for three years, and actual service was made upon him; or "unless the alleged cause is habitual intemperance, or intolerable cruelty and the plaintiff was domiciled in the state at the time of the marriage," and before bringing the complaint has returned with the intention of there remaining.[101]