Summary

Mahlon Pitney Thompson v. Thompson (226 U.S. 551…

Under the decree of the supreme court the payments of $75 per month for support of the wife and child were to commence on July 15, 1909. Supposing that decree to be now reinstated by a reversal of the decree of the court of appeals, the instalments already accrued would amount to considerably more than one half of the jurisdictional amount. The expectancy of life of the parties is clearly sufficient to make up the balance.
It is true that the obligation to make such payments for maintenance in the future, even when fixed by judicial decree, is not in the nature of a technical debt.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Thompson v. Thompson (226 U.S. 551…

Latham, 30 Gratt. 307) ; and since the courts of Virginia hold upon general principles that alimony has its origin in the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, and that although this is her right, she may by her conduct forfeit it, and where she is the offender, she cannot have alimony on a divorce decreed in favor of the husband (Harris v. Harris, 31 Gratt. 13) , it is plain that such a decree forecloses any right of the wife to have alimony or equivalent maintenance from her husband under the law of Virginia.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Thompson v. Thompson (226 U.S. 551…

Clayton, because the notice was published against the defendant without making such effort as the local law required to serve process upon her within the state, this court held, following repeated decisions of the state court, that the decree of divorce was wholly void for want of jurisdiction in the court that granted it; and that the liberty conferred by the local statute upon a defendant on whom constructive service only had been made, to apply within three years to set the decree aside, did not make it valid when the constructive service was so defective.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature