EVERETT v. EVERETT, 215 U.S. 203

Mr. Justice Harlan, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. We have no concern about the disposition made by the state court of questions of mere local law, ¡and have only to inquire whether, as required by the Constitution of the United States, it gave full faith ..and credit to the proceedings had in the Probate .Court in Massachusetts. Const., Art. IV, § 1. If it .did-,'the judgment must be affirmed; otherwise, reversed.

That the proceedings in the latter court were judicial in their nature, and that the New York court intended to give them full faith and credit, cannot be doubted. The Probate Court is a court of record, established by the General Court of Massachusetts under the authority of the constitution of that Commonwealth. Const. Mass. 1822; Pub. Stat. Mass. 1882, p. 871, c. 156. It has jurisdiction when a wife for justifiable cause is actually living apart from her husband to make such order as it deems expedient concerning her support. Ibid.

And when it has jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter its decree, until reversed or modified, is as conclusive in Massachusetts as the judgments of other courts there. Watts v. Watts, 160 Massachusetts, 464; Langhton v. Atkins, 1 Pick. 535; Dublin v. Chabourn, 16 Massachusetts, 433. In the suit in Massachusetts the fundamental fact was put in issue as to whether the plaintiff was the wife of the defendant and entitled, as such, to sue for support while living apart from her alleged husband.

The New York court adjudged that, as between the parties, and, so far .as the question before us is concerned, that fact had been determined by the Massachusetts court adversely to the plaintiff; for, the latter court ruled, after hearing the parties, that the relief asked from it should not be granted and dismissed the plaintiff’s petition. So reads the record of the Massachusetts court.

It is said, however, that for aught that appears from the ' record of the Probate Court, as produced herein, that court may have declined to grant the relief asked by the alleged wife without considering at all the fact of her marriage, but only on the ground that she was living apart from the defendant without justifiable cause.

But the answer to this contention is that the question whether the plaintiff was the lawful wife of the defendant, as well as the question whether she was entitled to separate maintenance while living apart from her alleged husband, were-kf issue-in the Probate Court, and if, in order to proye that the court below gave undue faith and credit to-the Massachusetts judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to show by oral testimony that there was really no dispute in the Probate Court as to the fact of her being the wife of the defendant, and that the only actual dispute at the hearing Was whether she had justifiable cause for living apart frpm Kim, no such proof ap'pears to have been made by her.

No bill of exceptions as to the evidence in the Probate Court seems to have been takgn, and we have before us only a record showing that the plaintiff, claiming to be the wife of the defendant herein, sued for separate maintenance and support, alleging that she was living apart from him for justifiable cause, and that the relief’ asked was denied and her petition dismissed without any statenaent of the specific grounds on which the court-proceeded and without any qualifying words indicating that the decree was otherwise thab upon the merits as to the issues made.

We concur with the Court of Appeals of New York in holding that as the Probate Court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, its judgment, rendered after hearing, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief demanded by her and that her petition be dismissed, it must be taken, upon the record of this case, that the latter court determined against the plaintiff the fact of her being the wife of the defendant at the time she sought separate maintenance and support.

It is doubtful whether the plaintiff, in her pleadings or otherwise, sufficiently asserted any right belonging to her under the Constitution of the United States. But if it were assumed that she did, the result, even upon that hypothesis, is that, upon the present showing by the plaintiff, there is no substantial ground to contend that the court below did not give such faith and credit to the judgment of the Probate-Court of Massachusetts as were required by the Constitution, and, therefore, this court has no authority to review, the final judgment’of the Neiy York court. The writ of error must be dismissed.

It is so ordered.