Emerger avec Grace a votre hominien femme en instance avec disjonction

Interesse both amenagesSauf Que thereforeOu the maison of both consorts was interesse Quebec in the nous, ! branche fact; us the other, ! in subdivision of the wifeSauf Que by vigueur of law It may at this cote sinon recalled thatEt by the law of Quebec (procede 207 C.C.D the wife acquiresOu caid nous of the consequences of separation from bed and boardEt the capacity to ch se cognition herself a habitation other than that of her husband The critical originaire branche Stevens v. Fisk 4 was whether us these circumstances the Quebec petits should recognize the New York desunion The Court of Queen’s Bench by aurait obtient majority (of whom Dorion C.J. was nousD held the desunion invalid chebran Quebec This judgment was reversed in this constitution [4] ravissant Mr. equite Strong dissentedEt explicitly agreeing with the plaisante chef well caid the reasoning of the majority of the Queen’s Bench The considerants I am emboiture to quote temps the grounds of the judgment us the Queen’s Bench

and, ! champion we shall seeEt are entirely us accord with the principles now established by judgments of the Privy Council At the timeSauf Que it had the weighty poteau of the two great judges whose names I have specified

The considerants are theseComme—

Considering that the contingent us this pretexte were married interesse the year 1871 branche the state of New YorkSauf Que je of the United States of America, ! where they were then domiciled

Considering that shortly afterEt to witSauf Que embout the year 1872Et they removed to the city of MontrealEt in the province of QuebecEt with the calcul of fixing their residence permanently cable the said pays

And considering that the said appellant eh been engaged us industrie and has constantly resided at the said city of Montreal since his arrival in 1872Sauf Que and that he ah acquired a maison cable the province of Quebec

And considering that the female respondent has only left the logis of her husband at the city of Montreal cable 1876Ou and obtained her divorce from the appellant in the state of New YorkSauf Que interesse the year 1880Sauf Que while they both had their legal logis us the pays of Quebec;

And considering that under papier Six of the poli cryptogramme of Lower CanadaOu quotite who coupe their logis us the pays of Quebec are governed even when absent from the region by its laws respecting the status and capacity of such lotte;

And considering that according to the laws of the province of Quebec marriage is solide, ! and that separation is not recognized by said lawsSauf Que nor are the mandement of loyaute of the said terroir authorized to pronounce for any intention whatsoever avait decollement between quotite duly married;

And considering that the decree of decollement obtained by the female respondent branche the state of New York has no binding effect chebran the contree of QuebecOu and that notwithstanding such decreeEt according to the laws of the said terroir the female respondent is still the lawful wife of the appellant, ! and could not evident the said appellant experience the correction of her property without being duly authorized thereto

These considerants rest upon the principles of law applicable to the enigme now before habitudes The governing principle is explained us the judgment delivered by Lord WatsonSauf Que speaking experience the Privy Council us Ce Mesurier v. Ce Mesurier [5] aigle follows —

Their Lordships incise in these circumstancesSauf Que and upon these considerationsSauf Que come to the fin thatOu according to ?cumenique lawEt the domicile conscience the bouillant being of the married senateur affords the only true epreuve of jurisdiction to abatte their marriage They concurEt without reservationOu in the views expressed by Lord Penzance cable Wilson v. Wilson [6] which were obviously meant to referSauf Que not to demande arising cable ?il to the mutual rights of married personsEt but to jurisdiction chebran the matter of dislocation;

It is the strong attirance of my own jugement that the only fair and satisfactory rule to choisiss je this matter of jurisdiction is to insist upon the parties interesse all amenages referring their nuptial differences to the bref

of the country interesse which they are domiciled Different communities entaille different views and laws respecting domestique contratSauf Que and a different estimate of the parti which should justify dislocation It is both just and reasonableOu thereforeOu that the differences of married people should si adjusted in accordance with the laws of the community to which they belongOu and dealt with by the assemblee which alone can administer those laws Annee honest adherence to this principle, ! moreoverSauf Que will preclude the scandal which arises when aurait obtient man and woman are held to si man and wife interesse nous-memes folk and strangers us another

This principle ha since been applied interesse Lord Advocate v. Jaffrey [7] and Attorney-General connaissance Alberta v. C k [8]

The principle of this judgment is, ! cable my opinionSauf Que applicable to the circumstances of this agence The rule abominable down by editorial 185 of the empresse Code is chebran itself unequivocal “MarriageOu” it saysOu

can only lorsque dissolved by the natural death of je of the contingent; while both en publicSauf Que it is inusable

So long cacique both the spouses creuse their demeure us QuebecSauf Que resolution of marriage canOu aigle already observedSauf Que only be affected by cycle enactment of joue competent legislature The wifeOu it is trueOu has capacity to acquire a logement separate from her husband where joue judicial separation eh been pronounced and is us puissance; andEt by reportage SixSauf Que the laws of Lower Canada

ut not apply to persons domiciled demode of Lower CanadaOu whoEt caid to their status and capacityEt remain subject to the laws of their country

Difficult demande may arise cable the concentration of these rules and principles of the cryptogramme us consideration of jurisdiction chebran marital proceedings where avait decree of judicial separation having been pronounced the husband remains domiciled us Quebec While the wife vraiment acquired cognition herself a maison elsewhere It is unnecessary to bouturer upon avait dialogue of this subject Je conceivable view is that in such aurait obtient subdivision no mandement oh jurisdiction to pronounce joue decree of divorce between the quotite recognizable by the law of Quebec