Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/301

RECENT CASES. 285 Conflict of Laws — Validity of Divorce — Defendant a Resident of ANOTiiKR State. — A divorce obtained by a wife residing in Colorado against her hus- band, a resident of North Carolina, without personal service on the husband, held, to have no extra-territorial validity. Harris v. Harris, 20 S. E. 187 (N. C). This decision follows the early North Carolina case of Irly v. Wilson, i Dev. & B. Eq. 568, and attempts to distinguish State . Schlatter, i) N. C. 520, which apparently over- rules it. The decision in the principal case is in conflict with the weight of American authority, and the position of the North Carolina court is somewhat anomalous. While admitting that a wife may get a domicile apart from her husband for the purposes of getting a divorce, the court defeats the effect of the domicile when obtained. The reason for allowing a wife a domicile apart from her husband is that he may not defeat her right to sue by constantly changing his domicile. This object is defeated if the husband can, by removing from the State where the wife has obtained a domicile, and so getting beyond the jurisdiction of its courts, prevent the wife from getting a valid divorce. The position of the husband is somewhat peculiar; by the laws of his State he is a married man, but he has no wife, since she has been taken from him by the decree of a com- petent court. 2 Bish. Mar. Div. and Sep., §§ 152 et seq. Constitutional Law — Police Power — Dogs. — A city council, under author- ity from the legislature to license dogs, passed an ordinance providing that if a dog attack a person at any place except on the premises of his owner, upon a complaint made to a police justice, if the latter is "satisfied of its truth and that such dog is dangerous, he shall order the owner to kill him immediately." Having refused to obey such an order, the relator petitioned the court to issue a writ of prohibition to compel the justice to desist in his efforts to enforce the prescribed penalty for the refusal. Held, the ordinance was void, as it deprived one of property without due process of law. The petition was therefore granted. People ex rel. Shand v. Tighe, 30 N. Y. Supp. 368. That a dog is property within the 5th Amendment, has been often decided ( Jenkins V. Ballantyne, 30 Pac. Rep. 760) ; but the authorities are in conflict as to the right to seize and confiscate such property without giving notice and granting a hearing to the owner, when there is no immediate danger to public health and public safety. Compare Julienne v. Mayor, 10 So. Rep. 43, and cases cited in Cooley, Const, llim., 6th ed. p. 740, note 4. Constitutional Law— Police Power — Exclusive Privileges. — The city of Omaha made a contract with defendant whereby he was to have the exclusive right to remove offal, dead animals, etc., from the city, paying therefor a certain sum to the city per annum. The matter of his charges was regulated also. Plaintiff, a taxpayer of Omaha, now seeks to have defendant enjoined from proceeding under this contract, on the ground that the making of the contract was unconstitutional, as the Constitution provides that " the legislature shall not pass any local or special laws . . . granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive privileges." Held, the contract is good, as (i) the prohibition in the Constitution refers to the manner of granting such a franchise, and (2) this is not the granting of a franchise, but a valid exercise of the police power. Smiley v. MacDoiiald, 60 N. W. Rep. 355 (Neb.). Regulations of this sort have been held to come within the i^olice power in many instances. In re Vandine, 6 Pick. 187 ; Walker v. Jameson, 37 N. E. Rep. 402 ; Dillon, Municipal Corporations, §§ 141, 142; and the case is only interesting as showing another ingenious counsel trying to twist an exercise of the police power into a grant of a franchise, and then show the grant of that franchise to be forbidden by the Constitution. Constitutional Law — Police Power — Right to Contract. — A statute made it unlawful for any person or partnership to issue any policy of insurance against loss by fire without having first obtained a charter of incorporation authorizing the same. Held, the statute was a proper exercise of the police power, and was not in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, nor with the declaration in the State Constitution that all men have the inherent and inalienable right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. Com. v. Vrooman,io Atl. Rep. 217 (Pa.). Sterrett, C. J. Dean, Green, JJ., dissenting. All the judges agreed that from the magnitude and nature of the insurance business, it was a proper subject for the exercise of the police power, and the Slaughter-house Cases (16 Wall. 36) were deemed conclusive as to the validity of the statute under the Federal Constitution. The chief point of dispute was whether the regulations of the Act were not practically prohibitive in forbidding insurance contracts by individuals. This presented a question of first impression to the court, and one upon which there was little or no authority directly in point. The majority, under a liberal construction