# Reply Brief of Respondent in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari — Sutton v. Leib > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386407_0105%3A6 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief of Respondent in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1952 - **Citation:** 342 U.S. 402 ## Text at yee “Kio é Spat fora 5 ‘ oy ee S. » 4 , ” ‘ v d 2 t : ‘ . ‘ F : >. f . . fa i e ’ ‘ 7 Ps e e ° . 8 = e . 7 ’ - - . on ~ : , . % » : , ¥ : et Re : o : opt , , : % % ; ; § 3 af “ if } c . : > i U 2 : “ o ce ° . t f 7 . ‘ 7 ? ‘ 6? é ah ‘A ® ‘ es . P 4. ’ +8 . : . 3 ‘ ‘i ' ; : eo . re P e . . :° . : : x ' Pe * «Dre . v's ° . | : | ° > ti . a . * . 7 ~ 3 ° —. . : . - : - : bs : : . bs . . é 2 ue ‘ ‘ . : e . ~ : i . " . 2 . ', 4 ; 4 ’ ‘ . U i » ¢ ‘ 9 . 3 “4 ; & | *% 6 ; . oe ‘ i is ‘ . ey i ; Pee U 7 H . . . =i : eee = ig : ; ° . . oa = 2 ea .e . i . ° tet ; | : e pa “ : ‘ ¢ ; 2 : é : si ! i : t ad ¥ e . . " t : Hi ' : > piers Hs ‘ E | Bee 5 . x we a 2 “Office Supressé Court, U. &. , VPFLlLED JUL 31 195}: ON eas : IN THE , os. . ~~ ‘ ‘ ee i * -PCHAREES ELMORE CROPLEY » SIPEME couRT OF THE UNITED SHES - @ OcToBER TERM, A. Ds 1951 ie — _— a No. 143 . ¥ x 7g . * VERNA LEIB SOTHO, anna ‘Petition for Writ of — vs. ; Certiorari to the. United’ R. WELLS LEIB, States “Court of Appefls . . | Sere dent. Phen Seventh Circuit. ORS oo Ne ers 4 i A oe oe ; REPLY BRIEF OF RESPONDENT, IN OPI OSITION | ~ 0 ren FOR CERTIO; i - \ a ‘s — \ sot oe M. Wcmmiss, - 908 Ridgely Building, 504 East Monroe aan Cre We) rs ’ Springfield, Dlinois; —\ a Wee Poiana Attorney for Respoydent. a — © QE scrneer a cannes, priwrens, srewarcero, i. * . ° 8 ~ % mi ‘ & v i q oyna aes rs) ae / + cs : : / . & ; a = es e. : : * F 2 : ff Poe i ; ; eo . - ‘ ‘ e ‘ 4 & ea: . . : . a . . j. _* e . - Bo Gps ; | ‘ pha. age : . - e . . 3 : fee & BEY — : ’ . AC : ‘ 4 te : ss 7 e - * . > € - - s" c - k > Me, eae - Pe : a j = 4 ey a = ne, $ J \ . eee oS get ees E . Sie an eo 2 3 ? : INDEX , : v LSS , fake ES _ PAGE - Table’ OF CASES oo ee cate csegeeeeeeensesecenen ex |S, 2 2. - Statemer® of Additional Peie RO, cae Being aries AAS ae * Propositions of uate Selah hota kasd hoe Ta i 4 ee. ee teteteesetessensaserereelectensenee 7 \ | \ u@ \ Sa : -. 3 * & \ re . : wate é x = ad hy \ « z * *. \ e * a ; Fe gs ye att é +. © bat a" , “- =. ad * ‘ e : . . . - ° ; ‘i oe si ° %, \ : ‘ { my xy, e ’ = . ~ s e 3: “ P 4] : 4 ‘4 . o , 2 2 TR oh = Fg oe a ’ , @ e.: “At , x ’ - Lk ? . ' os ‘ S ° © ’ * . @ es bd =e v . o e . . o% Ra ; . " a a a ? , “iB ’ ‘ s . ° “ rd . SK 2 — bed 7 ; - ee : 2 yD 4 - \ 7 Rey ear ; = Ss e e Tas : sae : : : 5 . f , j ¥ * oO if. ee es DYDEX Fon IOS POC A eS Sa c TABLE oF Cases Peers | - a PAGE: . ae "Alaska: Packers ‘Aseo.- vs. Industrial Acti. ‘Com. 0. 294 U.S. 532 ..:.... We enbah es Uae ie ve dae SS -, Arndt vs. Arndt, 399 TIL. MO in ce See Britton vs. Chamberlain, Cg Ey ee 6° ow - Brown vs. United States, 164° Fed. (2d). 490 (3rd get RRM S Neca cuh ene vec cesses Cckeustersscs vei cota 4 15 Corpus Juris Secundum 909, “Seo, 14¢, “Conflict See MME eb Aho iaenncas ev ad is us dace ciasviee 4 Criss vs. Industrial Commission, 348° Ill 75 sie .§ _ “Ertel vs. Ertel, 313 Ill’ App. 326 (331).. ee *. . Heck vs. Schupp, 394 DE ii 6c heb vbaeks tac tein: uk Ma me Lehmann - vs. ‘Lehmann, 225 Jil. App. 513 eck eves 6,9,10- ___~Leland vs. Leland, 319 ERM us cecdeced ceuweus Me ee * Lembeke vs. Lembcke, et Fed. (2d) 70 704 (ond Oo Te Ry TENE SALE AGRMLY © 00 6 Uden sa CPS cee avec + Lobghrah vs. Lonithrah, - gtd EY |) SBP Rt Keoak eee © _ Maginnis vs.*Maginnis, 323 #118... ae eesess Vane: is “Maynard V6.-Hill; 125 U.S. 190... os i dooce vers 5 ‘New York vs. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610, 617, O86... 8 + -"Pierce vs. Pierce, 379 Ill. 185..... tudswiscbueteerese’ RO. . . ° Powell vs. Powell, 207 Ill. App. 292;"Affd, Fe ‘In. 357 —4 edo Reifschneider vs. Reifschneider, 241 TE 08. i 4S: - + Réstatement—‘‘Conflict of Laws”? Sec. 19} Fae cntes 4,5. ae fe evens vs. Stevens, 304 Tl. Par Rae Alay Br ee 4 - Stillman, vs. Stillman, 99 Mi. 196..6..05.0.5,....5. ..6,9 Travers vs. Reinhardt, 205 Wily GEO es . Yerk, through her attorneys, wrote to respondent, inform- - ing him that she was ‘remarried and that his obligation to | pay scenes! under the terms of the Hlinois div roree decree, » eR aed ~ were tel with the exception: of. $180.00 owing to. her! at: a >the time of her remarriage (R. 12 -13). Respondent paid such sum of $180.00 and demanded | and receiyed a receipt _ or letter acknowledging satisfaction in full of all sumsdue , under the IHinois decree (R. 60-61-62-63-64-65-66). The - trial egurt hefd that such satisfaction piece constituted a ar : _ Settlement and _ release, binding upon petitioner “(R. | 0), and that accordingly it was net neeessary to ae sedis which of the conilicting judgments. (Nevada aie vore@and remarriage, or New York annulment) was entitled . to ‘‘full faith and credit”? i in Illinois. Thése facts not only . ‘show a complete compliati¢e by respondent with the decree _in-the Circuit Court of Mlinois, L.. also clearly disclose that petitioner | construed and-interpreted the terms of the " ~ decree, and. thé séttlement agreement, to be that any wiar- riage by her was the termination of respondent *s obligation. ' The Court of Appeals did not-agree with the Trial Court in - respect to.the judgment of the triakeourt that what wag * done amounted . to a release, and satisfaction “4 all obliga-. , tions of respondent’ to petitioner (R. 88-89). r so holding we believe the facts were .not ‘fully: realized. BS held that the N evada marriage of petitioner was valid in Nevada-and "was ‘entitled to full faith and erédit 4 im alt sister states, and. that the New York: ‘annniment had and. has no-extraterritor- | Bis ial effect, either in Nev ada’ ( where the marriage was eon- : tracted) .or in. Illinois -(where. the alimony dectee was ori- st _ ginally entered) (R, 89-90), Iti is our belief that the con- _stguction placed upon the last payment made by respand: | ent at the demand of the. petitioner, constitutes a sconstruc- tion by both parties upon the agreement which is em- -. bodied in the decree of divorce of the Cireuit Cougt of | Sangamon. County, Illinois: * Pipes a" vin "-Retsons' ‘in Opposition to Petition ‘We do not believe that the case of ‘Williams vs. North | Carolina was misunderstood by the United States Cirenit cg ; .. Court of Appeals. = ; The facts in this case clearly disclose that petitioner, who is a mature person, went from New York to Nevada, tar aware of all‘facts disclosed py the record; as stated. in te opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals. The de- ‘ mand made by her for the paynient of alimdny, even for the month in which she was married, was made with the . - full-undeystanding of her contract, with respondent-and the _ payment pursuant to-this demand was intended by her and - her attorneys; and the respondent and his attorneys, to com. - pletely discha¥ge all further obligations of respondefit to her under that divorce deeree-and contracta. This constrtic- ‘ tion should be giveh great weight. and: the question of good ‘faith, by petitioner, should be considered - with feference * to the exercising of the ‘discretion. ofthe court in this appli-. cation. Despite the assertion by petitioner that, the case ~ presents a question of great public importance, we do not believe that this is so. Nowhere i im any of the deédisions of this ecourtecan we. find any statement which justifies this conclusion, .:. .* .. Rs: _¢ %"? 8 } Aes Fe ? ane ° os : ae BA | Bed o . ¢$ = 6 / x ~” ‘i \ ae ' = a ? 3 , hy 2 & a : ° ’ > z bed a2) DB pal e . © ‘? jae g a b * PROPOSITIONS OF LAW a on ee ‘A marrtage is valid everywhere. if the requirements of the marriage law of the State where the contract of mar- = . Tiage takes. place: are complied with. (even though in con- Se travention. of the public policy or statutes of a State in es Seer. ‘which the parties were domiciled either before, or after such . Williams vs. North Carolina (1), 317 U.S 987, 307; | ‘Williams vs, North Carolina (1), 325 U.S.) 226, \\ 2305. ngeuteek \\ Loughran vs. Eouskran 292 U.S. 216;. Sia = - ravers vs. Reinhardt, 205 U.S. 423; | 7 oe re US. Pierce, 379 M&M. 185; fi e a ~ You vans VS. Youmans, Sis 4 15 N. Wi (2d) \\154 ALR. Al?l, 1177 (adoptjon);_. Yarboukough vs. Y ghiehioe: 290 U.S. 202 (child support) ; ° | Brown vs. United States, 164 Fed. (ay 490 Ss md ~ Cir.) ; x : -— Lembeke vs, Lémbeke, 1st Fea L (2d) 7 703, 708 (2n Cire a 15 Corpus Juris; oe itratuim, P. 909, See. 14¢ **Con- flict of Laws’’; S es Resictomatk—Loaiid of Lawa’’ Bec. 194; his ' =~Reifschneider US: Reif schneider, 247 Fis 92 Stevens vs. Stevens, 304 Th 297; * eee x Ertel vs. Ertel, 313 Tl. App. 326" (331) ; = Pierce ws. Pierce, 379 Ml. JONG): * «Pow ell. vs: s: Powell, 207°. Ap: ‘R92. Atta 282 Th "357. N 2 oF IL The full faith and ‘credit clause of ‘the Constitution, * while requiring. récognition of a-status created by the laws. *” - dr judgments of a sister State, does not nécessarily re- \ ee quire that the domicilliary State extehg, within its borders, the incidents flowing from or attached to such status.’ But. : in refusing to extend such. incidents to its domicilliaries, | such state cannot impose its domestic or publi¢e policy be- yond its own borders: In other words the New York an-_ nulment does not'vitiate -or destroy, the existing status of the parties in Nevada, in Illinois or in any other State: © - Alaska Packers, Association . vs. Industrial Aceh Com., 294 Ug. 5324 Re Youmans, —Mipn. +15 N.W. (2a), 587; 154 : ALR 1171, N77; ' Yarbourough vs. Yarbouraugh, 2090 US. 202, 216,. 219; : ° | * New York.vs, Halvey, 330 US. 610, ai? 618; ‘Criss vs. 1 ndustriat Commission, 348 i. 75 at 80; - Pierce vs. Pierce, -379 IN. 185 at 189; ° op » ‘Reifschneider vs. Reif schneider, 241 Ml. 92. ‘at-96; Re statement of sak Law (Conflict of Laws) sng seein 134, _ , is 2, Markee: is a vil’ aeukcadh to whisk there are 2 ‘thires ir ail % ) parties, the husband} the wife and the state. One of the incidents arising out of that status is the duty: af the hus-_ decree plaintiff was. not unmarried immediately when she entered into a marriage with Walter J. Henze, at. ene, “Nevada, on July 3, 1944, mies ; eS herpes vs. Hill, 125 US. 190; 6. Ton Ee Ae ee os at tt eS tes -g Shit ny ek ee) io) 3 ‘band to support his’ wife, Under this. contract and the. ee - ae ; e Leland vs. Leland; 319 I, 426; Heck vs. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296; - Arndt vs. Arndt, 399 Ill. 490. a) 7 * Iv. " r ARs The obligation to pay alimony may be abandoned by the one entitled to. it, and the- validity of remarriage when - this i is stated as the termination period of the ‘obligation | to’ pay alimony, - does not affect the right ‘of recipient, but all obligation upon the part of the one required to pay, - COASES, . ‘ Lekmanii vs. Lehmann, 295 IH. App. 513; 4 Stillman ‘és. Stillman, 99 Il. 196; : _ Britton vs, Chamberlain, 234 Ih. 249; _ Maginnis vs. Maginnis, 323 Ill. 118. tive Bo aoe 2 oe : bs °, | | es er dee ws ‘ a e . 9 e F ° 2 ‘ _ : roe : ” ee ‘ 9 ; ARGUMENT & “Respondent an not know what Sallaonna: in Nevada 3 with reference to the divorce of Walter J. Henzel, ‘and he - ‘does not know what- oceurred in: petitioner’s aniulment i proceeding in New York. He was?’ not a party-to either. . . ‘proceeding and had no information whatever as this record discloses, until the time when demand: was made upon him _ for the revival of alimeny payments before this: suit was ‘= begun (R. 10). ‘This claim for such payments was for the period inclusive of August 1st, 1944 to November 21st, 1947 (the date of the Sutton marriage) (Opinion of. Circuit 2 €ourt of Appeals; PP. 87, 88). The complaint was filed | in this case April 12th, 1950, end shows that Vera i Petitioner, who ‘was the » former wife of respondént, «i As citizen, of New York; that. She was married to SA June 25, 1924, and divorced from him October .11,- 1939 (R. 3); that he made payments to her. in accordance with the decree until the first day of August, 1944 ¢R. 4); that: . on the 21st day of November, 1947,-she was married to one 4 ~‘Bherwood Sutton (R. 4); that on July 3, 1944, she married Walter J. Henzel in Reno, Nevada (Opinion of . Circuit Cotirt of Appeals, R. 87, $8). After her marriage, she and Walter J. Henzel resided together as man and wife until on of about’ August 3, 1944 (R. 22-23), when hé was served’ with summons in a separate maintenance suit begua ‘by his es former wife, DoPothy Henzel. The decree in the proceeding | brought by Dorothy Henzel was entered by the. New. York Court on June 22, 1945. In Jamiary of 1945 petitioner insti- tuted proceedings in the fupreme Court of the State of New York for'the annulment of her Reno marriage to Wal- ' ter J. Henzel (R..23). On June 6, 1947,.an ipterlocutory Mn 9 8 judgment 1 was entered i in her favor, annuling the marriage. This became final three months after that date (R. 24). On . -. November 21, 1947 she was married to Sherwood Sutton (R. 4). Thereafter this suit was filed to recov er alimony . . during the period she was married to and living with Hen- _ _zel, and thereafter until the Sutton marriage. There was: no decree of any court that her marriage to-Henzel was void, Sache Erne We do not question the right-of any court to inquire col-° laterally into a void decree entered by any other court. ~ However, it must be borne in mind that this record does not disclose any. attack in Nevada, upon the marriage of © these ‘persons. New York undoubtedly has the power °to determine the validity. of a marriage between its citizens, .. nies + or one of its citizens, - and another person. Its judgment .* could not in any regard be res adjudicata, so far.as respond- - - ent is concerned, because he was not a party to the proceed- . ings in New York. Illinois does give full faith and credit. to the judgment of the State of New York, in which it is. held that insofar as. its citizens were concerned, in that: State, the divorce obtained by Henzel in Nevada was void. This judgment of the New York court depended upon the facts presented to that court in that proceeding to which the . respondent .was: not a party.. The courts of each state - insofar asamarital questions are concerned, have sole power to determine the status of their citizens. This does not in - any way affect the validity of the marriage in Nevada of scarauarps: and Henzel, - far as Nevada is concerned. The statement j tide by petitioner that the court of ap- _° peals did not’ understand the effect of the decisig nig the “case of Williams vs. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226;67S8. Ct. . ' 1092; 89 -L. Ed. 1577, Certain excerpts from'the opinion |. - 2 Se brief, but a reading of the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals clearly: discloses that the effect of the decision in _ .this case,"upog the situation presented by the record, was. ‘clearly considéfed by the court, and we submit that the con- clusion reached by the court in regard to it, is sound. — . We desire to carry the thought of the marriage of peti- tioner and Henzel, in Nevada, as the basis for the termina- tion of the obligation of respondent, as shown by the settle- ment agreement-and the decree approving it. In the case _ ~ of Lehmann vs. Lehmann, 225 Ill. App.’ 513, on page 526, ~ the Court said: | ‘*Even though ‘it be considered that wiah marriage was not a valid one in Illinois, it was valid in New Jer- - sey, where performed, and also valid in their subse-: quent successive domniciles, and we think that’ under _ all the facts disclosed it should be held, contrary to the -' finding of the chaneellor in the decree appealed from, that she remarried within ‘the meaning of the -words contained in said divorce decree of April 1, 1915, and in the written agreement entered into. between the parties, about that time, and that she thereby elected to forfeit; and did forfeit, her right to receive alimony for her own support thereafter from respondent. . As said in. Stiliman vs. Stillman, 99 Il. 196, 202: ‘It is her privi-. lege to abandon the provision the decree of the court made for her support under the sanctions of the law, for another provision for maintenance which she would . obtain bya second marriage, and when she has done 80 the law will require her to abide her election.’ ’’. The faets in this case clearly show that the petitioner _ believed she was entering into a valid marriage im Nevada | with Henzel. This is shown by her demand for alifnony ie payments ‘ue for June and July of 1944. Upon the pay- ment of the amounts due her for. those -onths—ghe stated ° . , that this was in fall of all further obligations of the respond- . Sc Gree ena / . Rae ere ent. This payment Was made by respondent tipon the theory _that his entire obligation to her under the decrée in their divorce was completely ended. Both parties placed this m construction upon the. contract. . There is reason for this "belief found: in the decree, and.in the obligation of a hus- band to support iis wife. The Common law and the deci- sions under*our divorce statutes uniformly sustain this © obligation not only during the r marriage, but after.a divorce, and in Illinois in some. instances even thongh the fanlt be that of the divorced wife. _ When a divorced woman rémar- . " Ties she determines that she will. look to the person then _ becoming her husband as a substitute for her former*hus- - " - band, with reference to this obligation. This i is the effect of the decision in the case of Lehmann vs. Lehmann, 225 — Ill. App. 513, and it is sustained by the cases which we have . cited in our Division IV of the Propositions of Law. Upon page 527 of the opinion i in the Leh mann case the court said :— **Both petitioner and respondent seiniaghy believ ed that the former had lost her right to ‘receive such alimony from the latter and they ‘acted accordingly, : ahd thereby themselves practically construed their own agreements as. to alimony. Such construction is en- titled-to great if not controlling weight and. should, we think, be followed. (13 Corpus Juris;’ page 546, see. 517; Sholl: Bros. vs. Peoria & P. U. Ry. Co., 276 ill. 267. y” Here i is presented this situation. A mature woman was first’ married to respondent in 1924; twenty years there- after, in 1944, she married Henzel, leavi ing her home in New York’ to go to Nevada for this purpose and knowing that heewas in Nevada for the purpose of seciiring a divorce - from ‘his. wife. She:-was: peasecene with the Bepatiacal : of f the laws of New York - Aft ne the Antammjra4' ath tiie mh Tr KK ew 11. sw York Courts that her marriage to him was invalid on: ptember 6, 1947, on November 21, 1947, she married lerwood Sutton, and in her allidavit states that they are Il husband and wife (R. 74). : She was not an innocent person, being kinase: upon, { upon two occasions, after her divorce from refpondent, termined to look to first Henzel and then Sutton for the rformance of the obligation of support and maintenance rmerly imposed upon respondent. . This construction the agreement entered into between her and respondent, d embodied in the decree, is entitled to great weight, and Q petitioner should not now be heard to say that she did t know that the marriage she was entering into in vada, was invalid. . : We respectfully submit that thee is nothing unique in is situation and ho matter of great public moment. We ge that petitioner does not come into this court, and did t come into the district court, asking relief, upon any - : ritorious basis, and that by her own conduct and her n construction of respondent’s obligation, and her suc- ‘sive marriages, she had clearly terminated all obliga- n of respondent to her, 7 Respectfully iW, : | Arruur M. Frrzorraf 908 Ridgely Building, 504 East Monroe Street, ~. Springfield, Illinois. Attorney for Respondent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386407_0105%3A6. Public record. Not legal advice.