S , Weekly Notes (1897), 20 (6)) noted with approval in the House of Lords. Mr. Le Mesurier, a member of the civil service of Ceylon, sued his wife for a divorce a vin culo matrimomi in the District Court of Matara, in that colony, on the ground of her alleged adultery with three co-respondents. The marriage had been solemnized in Eng land, none of the parties were domiciled in England, and, except the wife, none of the parties were resident there. Important questions of colonial law, which are irrele vant for our present purpose, were raised by the appeal. But the chief point was whether the facts would give a court of divorce juris diction to pronounce a decree which would by the general law of nations possess extrac territorial authority. The Privy Council held that they would not do so. The accepted doctrine must now be taken to be that no divorce is entitled to recogni tion in another state under the rules of in ternational law, unless the court which pro nounced the decree of divorce had jurisdiction over the spouses by. reason of the bona fide and permanent domicil of the spouses in the country to which the court belonged. The reasons in favor of this rule are admirably summed up by Lord Watson in the Le Me surier case (ubi supra, at pp. 538-541). It only remains to be added that the pro ceedings in the foreign suit must have been in accordance with natural justice; thus the respondent must have proper notice of the suit and opportunity of defence (Shaw î>. A. G. (1870), L. R. 2 P. & D. 156; Collis r. Hector, L. R. 19 Eq. 175); and the decree must be final and have been pronounced on the merits without fraud or collusion. (Shaw v. Gould, ubi supra; Bonaparte v. Bonaparte (1892), Prob. 402). But if these conditions are complied with, a foreign decree of di vorce cannot be impeached in English courts for a mere error of procedure, even by third parties in collateral proceedings, although the error was such as to make the j udgment of the foreign court bad by the law of the
country where it was pronounced. (Pemberton v. Hughes (1899), 68 L. J. Ch. 281). It will be observed that the rule laid down in the Le Mesurier case deals only with the condition necessary to create jurisdiction from the standpoint of international law. Jurisdiction exercised under the municipal law, contrary to international, would possess municipal authority. (See Green v. Green (1893), Prob. p. 92). The question may yet arise in England in connection with decrees in India, where (Thornton v. Thornton (1886), ii P. D. 176; Warter v. Waiter (1890), 15 P. D. 152) residence creates di vorce jurisdiction without domicil (Indian Divorce Act, 1869). Semble, in such a case, the decree would have no international effect. A colonial law prohibiting the mar riage of the guilty party, so long as the other remains unmarried, does not operate as a bar to marriage in England, where the guilty party has acquired a domicil there (Scott v. A. G. (1886), ii P. D. 126). The ground of the decision was that the incapacity to marry, being imposed only on the guilty party, was penal in character, and as such inoperative out of the jurisdiction under which it was inflicted (see Ponsford i: John son, 2 Blatch. 51); but the case is otherwise with regard to a prohibition imposed equally on both parties and constituting an integral part of the proceedings by which they are released from their incapacity to contract a fresh marriage, e.g. a rule that neither shall marry within six months of the final decree (Warter v. Warter, ubi supra), and as to pe nal prohibitions see Huntington r. Attrill ( 1893), App. Cas. 150). Generally it may be said that a foreign decree of divorce possess ing international validity has the same effect on the legal position of the parties as it would have 'under the law of their domicil. (See further Watts v. Shrimpton (1855), 21 Beav. 97; Shaw v. Gould, ubi supra, as to succession to real property). The American law is fully discussed in 5 Rul. Cas. at p. 723, and i Bouvier, Law Diet, at p. 593.
