Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 30 > Issue 3 (1932)
Abstract
H obtained a divorce in Alabama under a statute prohibiting remarriage without. permission of the court. He remarried in Tennessee, where the statute prohibited remarriage during the life of the other spouse. Held, the Tennessee law applied to divorces obtained in that state only. In the absence of express words. to that effect, the Alabama statute had no extra-territorial effect; and the marriage, valid where performed, was valid everywhere. Smith v. Goldsmith, (Ala. 1931) 134 So. 651. H secured a divorce in Vermont under a statute declaring void any remarriage within three years, either within or without the state (Uniform State Law). Within a year he remarried in New York and returned to Vermont. Held, one domiciled in the state was subject to its laws; and the legislature clearly intended such marriages to be void. Wheelock v. Wheelock (Vt. 1931) 154 Atl. 665.
Recommended Citation
CONFLICT OF LAWS - REMARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE,
30
Mich. L. Rev.
461
(1932).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol30/iss3/20