Summary

Pierce Butler Davis v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

The service of notice of taking depositions upon respondent in the District of Columbia and upon her counsel in Virginia implies that petitioner's counsel understood that respondent had standing to appear and cross examine. Plainly her plea and conduct in the Virginia court cannot be regarded as special appearance merely to challenge jurisdiction. Considered in its entirety, the record shows that she submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Virginia court and is bound by its determination that it had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler Davis v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

In Virginia absolute divorce was authorized where either party willfully deserted or abandoned the other for three years. [2] The circuit courts there have jurisdiction over suits for divorce and alimony. No suit for divorce is maintainable unless one of the parties has been domiciled in the State for at least a year preceding its commencement. [3]
Petitioner and respondent married in 1909 and, until about the time he brought the suit for limited divorce, lived together in the District of Columbia.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler Davis v. Davis — Opinion of the Court

The final decree states that the case came on for hearing upon specified papers and depositions of five named persons taken before a commissioner pursuant to notice served in Arlington County, on counsel who had entered special appearance for respondent, and upon her personally in the District of Columbia. It found: Respondent willfully deserted petitioner February 24, 1925; the desertion continued from that date; three years had elapsed since the entry of the decree a mensa et thoro; there has been no reconciliation, and none is probable.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature