Opinion
No. 3253.
Decided May 6, 1941.
Where both parties are domiciled in this State at the date of the filing of a libel for divorce and the cause of action arose here the court has jurisdiction both of the parties and of the subject-matter.
Jurisdiction over divorce is entirely statutory.
No legislative enactment provides that divorce proceedings cannot be instituted within a year from the date of the marriage.
LIBEL FOR DIVORCE. The libelant resided in the State for more than a year previous to her marriage and has continued to reside here ever since. The libelee has resided in the State since the marriage, and service of the libel was made on him within the State. The libelant alleges that on certain occasions in May and October, 1940, the libelee was guilty of extreme cruelty toward her.
The parties were married on May 1, 1940, and the libel was filed on October 28, 1940. The question "whether a libel for divorce can be maintained within a year from the date of marriage" was reserved and transferred by Burque, C. J., without a ruling.
William H. Sleeper, for the libelant.
As the facts are understood, both the libelant and the libelee were domiciled within this State on the date of the filing of the libel and at the time the alleged acts of cruelty occurred. That being so, the court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the cause for divorce. P. L., c. 287, ss. 4, 5; Hanson v. Hanson, 78 N.H. 560.
The power of the court to grant divorces is entirely statutory (Shatney v. Shatney, 76 N.H. 391, 392; Parsons v. Parsons, 9 N.H. 309, 317), and we are not aware of any legislative enactment which provides that divorce proceedings cannot be instituted within a year from the date of the marriage.
Case discharged.