Skip to content


Roth Vs. Ehman - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number107 U.S. 319
AppellantRoth
RespondentEhman
Excerpt:
.....was not the widow of the decedent and not entitled to dower in his estate or to inheritance under the laws of illinois. this presents no question of which we can take cognizance under sec. 709 of the revised statutes. no right, title, privilege, or immunity which could be claimed under the authority of the united states was involved, and the validity of no treaty or statute of, or any authority exercised under, the united states was drawn in question. neither was there any statute or authority of the state relied on which was in conflict with the constitution, treaties, or laws of the united states. motion granted.
Judgment:
Roth v. Ehman - 107 U.S. 319 (1883)
U.S. Supreme Court Roth v. Ehman, 107 U.S. 319 (1883)

Roth v. Ehman

Decided March 19, 1883

107 U.S. 319

MOTION TO DISMISS A WRIT OF ERROR TO THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Syllabus

This Court has no jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment of a state court recognizing as valid the decree of a foreign court annulling a marriage.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only question is this case controverted below was whether Madelaine Roth, the plaintiff in error, was the widow of John George Roth, deceased, and that depended entirely on the validity of the decree of the Royal Matrimonial Court of Elwangen, in the Kingdom of Wurtemburg, annulling the marriage of the parties. The Supreme Court of Illinois decided in favor of the validity of the Wurtemburg decree, and consequently that the plaintiff in error was not the widow of the decedent and not entitled to dower in his estate or to inheritance under the laws of Illinois. This presents no question of which we can take cognizance under sec. 709 of the Revised Statutes. No right, title, privilege, or immunity which could be claimed under the authority of the United States was involved, and the validity of no treaty or statute of, or any authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question. Neither was there any statute or authority of the state relied on which was in conflict with the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States.

Motion granted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //