A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 3 of 3Howard, George Elliott
History
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 3 of 3
Howard, George Elliott
Families; Marriage -- History
authority is vested in the circuit courts within the respective
circuits or their subdivisions.[504]
[500] Act of Jan. 13, 1871: in _Gen. Laws_ (1870-71), 414. In the
same volume, curiously enough, the civil code of Jan. 12, 1866,
including the divorce law of that year, as given in the text, is
re-enacted; and so the act of Jan. 10, 1867, is entirely ignored.
But the early legislation of Dakota is exceptionally bungling and
confusing.
[501] _Rev. Codes of the Ter. of Dak._ (1877), 215, 216; also
in LEVISSEE, _Ann. Codes_ (1883), II, 747-52. By the code of
1877 the term of wilful desertion, wilful neglect, and habitual
intemperance was fixed at two years; but the one-year period was
substituted in 1881: Act of March 1, _Laws_ (1881), 66.
[502] _Stat. of S. D._ (1899), II, 1025-30; _Rev. Codes_ (1903),
598-603.
[503] Act of March 6: _Acts_ (1899), 95; but insanity as a
ground is omitted in _Laws_ (1901), 81, 82. There is no partial
divorce in North Dakota; but, though a decree be denied, the
court may provide for the maintenance of the wife and children
by the husband: _Rev. Codes_ (1895), 614. _Cf._ McFarland _v._
McFarland, 2 _N. W. Rep._, 269; Ross _v._ Ross, 10 _N. W. Rep._,
193.
[504] _Rev. Codes of N. D._ (1895), 611-15, 929; _Stat. of S. D._
(1899), II, 1489; I, 267.
Nevada has likewise closely followed the example of California.
Separation from bed and board has at no time been provided
for. Bigamous marriages and those within the forbidden degrees
of consanguinity are void without decree or other legal
proceedings.[505] But since 1875, with one exception, the grounds of
absolute divorce have been practically the same as those prescribed
by the California code, although they are differently expressed, and
there are not the same minute provisions regarding the application
of the law and the conditions of action. On complaint of the
aggrieved the courts are now authorized to dissolve the bonds of
wedlock for (1) impotence at the time of the marriage continuing
to the time of divorce; (2) adultery since marriage, remaining
unforgiven; (3) wilful desertion for one year; (4) conviction of
felony or infamous crime; (5) habitual gross drunkenness, contracted
since marriage and incapacitating the offender from contributing his
or her share toward the support of the family; (6) extreme cruelty;
(7) neglect of the husband for the period of one year to provide
the common necessaries of life, unless such neglect is the result
of poverty which could not have been avoided by ordinary industry.
Thus the laws of Nevada regarding the causes of divorce have been
remarkably free from change; for the statute of 1875 in this regard
is identical with the original act of 1861, except that by the
latter the terms of wilful desertion and wilful neglect to provide
are each fixed at two years.[506]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account