Page images
[blocks in formation]


to be heard, and also authorizes the board to correct the valuation. So that it cannot be objected that the railroad companies are precluded from a full hearing on the matter of valuation; and, as has heretofore been said by this court, one hearing is sufficient to constitute due process.

Other questions are discussed by counsel in their briefs, but in view of the exhaustive and well-considered opinion of the trial judge, with the general trend of which we concur, it is unnecessary to further extend this opinion. It is sufficient to refer to that opinion for a consideration of those questions. We have noticed those which seem to us paramount and controlling

It is charged in the bill that there was a systematic undervaluation of other property in the State which resulted in denying to this plaintiff the equal protection of the law. The trial court found against this charge. It is enough to say that generally we accept the finding of a trial court upon a question of fact when the testimony respecting it is conflicting. It may also be said that a legislature is not bound to impose the same rate of tax upon one class of property that it does upon another. As it may exempt all of one class so it may impose a different rate of taxation. It is sufficient if all of the same class are subjected to the same rate and the tax is administered impartially upon them.


MR. JUSTICE BREWER: Cases on the docket, numbered from 462 to 487, inclusive, are suits brought by different railroad companies against this appellee, and are submitted on the same record. The same decree will be entered in each of them.

The numbers and docket titles of the cases referred to are as follows: 462. Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company v. Powers. 463. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company v. Same. 464. Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon Railway Company v. Same. 465. St. Clair Tunnel Company v. Same. 466. Michigan Air Line Railway Company v. Same. 467. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company v. Same.

201 U. 8.




No. 102. Argued December 5, 6, 1905.—Decided April 2, 1906.

The general rule that courts of the United States have no jurisdiction upon

the subject of divorce or for allowance of alimony, because diversity of citizenship does not exist and no pecuniary value is involved, has no application to territorial courts or to the appellate jurisdiction of this

court over those courts. The Territorial Practice Act of April 7, 1874, 18 Stat. 27, under which the

jurisdiction of this court does not extend to reëxamining the facts but is limited to determining whether the findings support the judgment and to reviewing errors as to admission or rejection of testimony on exceptions duly taken, has no application to appeals from the Philippine

Islands. Under $10 of the act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691, appeals are allowed from

judgments of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands where the amount exceeds $25,000, in the same manner as from judgments of the Circuit Courts of the United States, and such appeals extend to an examination of the facts as well as the law, and where alimony or separation

of conjugal property has been awarded by the decree of divorce amount 468. Ann Arbor Railroad Company v. Same. 469. · Cincinnati, Saginaw & Mackinaw Railroad Company v. Same. 470. Chicago, Detroit & Canada Grand Trunk Junction Railroad Company

v. Same. 471. Munising Railway Company v. Same. 472. Lake Superior & Ishpeming Railway Company v. Same. 473. Marquette & Southeastern Railway Company v. Same. 474. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. Same. 475. Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company v. Same. 476. Mineral Range Railroad Company v. Same. 477. Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Company v. Same. 478. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company v. Same. 479. Pontiac, Oxford & Northern Railroad Company v. Same. 480. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company v. Same. 481. Copper Range Railroad Company v. Same. 482. Gogebic & Montreal River Railroad Company v. Same. 483. Manistee & Southeastern Railroad Company v. Same. 484. Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad Company v. Same. 485. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Company v. Same. 486. Wisconsin & Michigan Railway Company v. Same. 487. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company v. Same.

Statement of the Case.

201 U.S.

ing to over $25,000 and this court takes jurisdiction of the appeal by reason of the amount involved it may, if necessary to determine whether the decree was right in that respect, pass upon the sufficiency of the

testimony authorizing or refusing the divorce. For the purposes of the jurisdiction of this court it makes no difference

whether the amount claimed by the wife in a suit for divorce in the Philippine Islands be termed alimony or her share of community prop

erty. Under $10 of the Philippine Island Act of 1902 appeals are allowed in all

cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000 and this court has no power to create an exception not made in the statute; it would

be judicial legislation. The abandonment by the husband of his wife, excluding her from his house

and forming open and illicit relations with other women who bear him children, is sufficient to bring his adultery within the rule of law in the Philippine Islands that adultery of the husband must be accompanied by

public scandal and disgrace to the wife in order to entitle her to a divorce. In this case the Court of First Instance, on uncontradicted evidence as to

the husband's adultery and scandal ensuing therefrom, found that the wife was entitled to a divorce and that there was no adultery on her part; the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands found that the wife had committed adultery, basing the ling on a letter written by her and construed to be in the nature of a confession, and for that reason alone reversed the judgment. On examining the record this court holds that such letter does not amount to a confession, and that there is insufficient evidence of her having committed adultery, and therefore reverses the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.

This was a suit brought in the Court of First Instance of the province of Iloilo by the appellant as plaintiff against her husband, the defendant, for a judicial separation or divorce a mensa et thoro, and equal separation of the property of the conjugal partnership, for an allowance to the plaintiff for her support during the pendency of the action, and for counsel fees, costs and general relief, upon the ground of the husband's adultery and the public scandal and disgrace thereby brought upon the plaintiff.

In his answer defendant alleged, by way of recrimination, adultery on the part of the wife, denied the existence of any community property, and prayed for a divorce without alimony.

Upon the trial, the court decreed a divorce to the plaintiff on account of her husband's adultery, as well as the payment

201 U. S.

Argument for Appellant.

of $81,042.76, Mexican money, due her as her unpaid share of the property belonging to the conjugal partnership, as well as the sum of $3,200, Mexican money, as an allowance for her support since the date upon which the action was instituted, being at the rate of four hundred pesos a month for eight months, with costs.

After motion for a new trial had been made and overruled, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decree of the court below, incorporated in its opinion certain findings of fact, and ordered judgment absolute that the complaint be dismissed.

Whereupon plaintiff appealed to this court under section 10 of the act of July 1, 1902, to provide a temporary civil government in the Philippine Islands, 32 Stat. 691, 695, a copy of which section is given in the margin.'


Mr. Frederic R. Coudert and Mr. Howard Thayer Kingsbury for the appellant:

This case involves the jurisdictional amount and an appeal lies to this court. 32 U.S. Stat., p. 695. A money judgment, although an incident to a divorce suit, confers jurisdiction. Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 62. This court can and should review the facts as in appeals from the District of Columbia. Rev. Stat. 8 705; 27 Stat. 434; Beyer v. Lefevre, 186 U. S. 114.

1 “Sec. 10. That the Supreme Court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands in all actions, cases, causes and proceedings now pending therein, or hereafter determined thereby, in which the Constitution or any statute, treaty, title, right or privilege of the United States is involved, or in causes in which the value in controversy exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars, or in which the title or possession of real estate exceeding in value the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, to be ascertained by the oath of either party or of other competent witnesses, is involved or brought in question; and such final judgments or decrees may and can be reviewed, revised, reversed, modified or affirmed by said Supreme Court of the United States on appeal or writ of error by the party aggrieved, in the same manner, under the same regulations, and by the same procedure, as far as applicable, as the final judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of the United States."


Argument for Appellant.

201 U.S.

An appeal, as distinguished from a writ of error, brings up the facts as well as the law, and even the concurrent findings of two courts below will be reversed, if clearly in conflict with the evidence. Wiscart v. d'Auchy, 3 Dall. 321; Johnson v. Harmon, 94 U. S. 371; Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1; The Carib Prince, 170 U. S. 655; Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17; Illinois v. I.C. R. R. Co., 184 U. S. 77; Shapirio v. Goldberg, 192 U. S. 232. Aliter, in appeals from Territorial Courts, in which the evidence at large is not returned. 18 Stat. 27; Idaho & Oreg. Land Co. v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509.

The evidence in support of the allegation of plaintiff's adultery is full of contradictions and improbabilities, and indicates a conspiracy. The letter of March 6, 1899, is not a confession of guilt.

The parties cohabited matrimonially after the time when defendant claims to have discovered his wife's alleged adultery. This disproves the charges against plaintiff and also operates as a condonation of any prior offense. Condonation bars the defense of recrimination and restores the matrimonial union to its original status. The restored spouse may obtain a divorce from the other spouse subsequently guilty of adultery. Partidas VI, Tit. 9, Law 6; Sanchez De Sancto Matrimonii Sacramento, Lib. X, Disp. VII, n. 1, Disp. VI, n. 7, pp. 335, 336; Anichini v. Anichini, 2 Curt. Ec. 210; Sellers v. Sellers, 1 Swab. & Tr. 482; Goode v. Goode, 2 Swab. & Tr. 48; Jones v. Jones, 3 C. E. Green (N. J.), 33; Morrell v. Morrell, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 318; Bishop on Marriage, Div. & Sep. vol. II, sec. 405; 9 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed. 821. Section 106, Philippine Civil Code, merely establishes recrimination as a defense. Partidas VI, Tit. 2, Law 8, deals only with the marital relations of the parties pending a divorce suit. It is an elaboration of the provision of Instit. Lib. II, Tit. XVI, of the Corpus Juris Canonici, that during the suit separation a thoro is not necessarily required. See also Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. vol. VI, p. 380, n. 788; Gaspari, Con. Treat. on Mat. vol. II, p. 328, par. 1366; Evernz on Matrimony, vol. IV, p. 1069, n. 117.

« PreviousContinue »