"1. the former marriage has been annulled or dissolved; provided, that in case it be dissolved, the decree of divorce must have been rendered and made at least one year prior to such subsequent marriage."--Act of Feb. 25: _Stat. and Amend. to the Codes_ (1897), 34. "Sec. 91. The effect of a judgment decreeing a divorce is to restore the parties to the state of unmarried persons."--Act of March 30, 1874: _Amendments to the Codes_ (1873-74), 189; also in DEERING, _Codes and Stat. of Cal._ (1886), II, 31; POMEROY, _Civil Code_ (1901), 44. [537] In Abbie Rose Wood _v._ Estate of Joseph M. Wood, filed in the superior court of San Francisco, June 14, 1900, Judge Belcher decided that the marriage on Jan. 1, 1898, in Reno, Nev., of a person divorced in California, Aug. 19, 1897, the former husband still living, was not valid. He relies upon the words of nullity in the amendment of 1897; and the fact that the person went to another state solely for the purpose of getting married while still retaining her domicile in California. "Section 61, Civil Code, contains no penal clause, as stated; but it does contain words of nullity, and words which suspend, as to third persons, the operation of the decree ... ; and these cannot be avoided by merely invoking another jurisdiction for that purpose. The two sections (61 and 91, C. C.) are to be read together, and, so read, their interpretation and meaning are free from either uncertainty or ambiguity. The law of the domicile is invoked, and the law of the domicile controls. No other jurisdiction can relieve against it."--See _San Fran. Law Journal_ (July 2, 1900), 1. In a case decided on Dec. 10, 1900, Judge Trout, of the superior court of San Francisco, takes the same position as Judge Belcher.