Barber v. Barber Ex Rel. Cronkhite
21 How. 582, 16 L.Ed. 226, 62 U.S. 582 (1859)
Rule of Law:
A wife who has obtained a judicial separation (divorce a mensa et thoro) may acquire a domicile separate and distinct from her husband; consequently, she may sue her husband in a United States federal court under diversity jurisdiction to enforce an alimony decree.
Facts:
- Hiram and Huldah Barber were married in the State of New York, which was their original matrimonial domicile.
- Huldah sued Hiram in New York for a separation based on cruel and inhuman treatment.
- The New York court granted Huldah a divorce a mensa et thoro (separation from bed and board) and ordered Hiram to pay her annual alimony.
- Hiram failed to pay the ordered alimony and subsequently moved to Wisconsin, leaving no assets in New York.
- Hiram attempted to obtain a divorce a vinculo (full divorce) in Wisconsin by claiming Huldah abandoned him, without disclosing the prior New York judgment.
- A large sum of unpaid alimony accrued under the New York decree.
- Huldah sought to enforce the New York alimony judgment against Hiram in his new state of residence.
Procedural Posture:
- Huldah Barber sued Hiram Barber in the Court of Chancery in New York, obtaining a decree for separation and alimony.
- After the husband moved, Huldah sued Hiram in the United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin (equity side) to enforce the New York decree.
- Hiram filed a demurrer to the bill, arguing the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
- The District Court overruled the demurrer and ordered Hiram to answer.
- The District Court rendered a final decree in favor of Huldah for the payment of the alimony arrears and interest.
- Hiram Barber appealed the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a wife who has been judicially separated from her husband have the legal capacity to establish a domicile in a different state than his, thereby enabling her to sue him in a federal equity court for unpaid alimony under diversity jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wayne
Yes, a judicially separated wife may establish a separate domicile to sue her husband in federal court. The Court reasoned that while the general rule merges a wife's domicile with her husband's, this presumption does not apply when the marriage relation has been modified by a judicial decree of separation. When a husband commits acts justifying a separation and the couple is legally separated, the wife's subordination to the husband ceases. She must be permitted to establish her own domicile for her safety and comfort. Since Huldah established a domicile in New York and Hiram in Wisconsin, they are citizens of different states. Furthermore, the Court held that while federal courts generally lack jurisdiction over divorce and alimony allowances themselves, courts of equity have long possessed the power to enforce alimony decrees already rendered by competent state courts as debts of record, particularly to prevent fraud where a defendant flees the jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Justice Daniel
No, a wife cannot establish a separate citizenship from her husband while the marriage bond exists. Justice Daniel argued that under the common law doctrine of coverture, husband and wife constitute a single legal entity, and the wife's legal existence is suspended or incorporated into the husband's. A divorce a mensa et thoro does not dissolve the marriage bond; therefore, the wife cannot be sui juris (independent) or a citizen of a different state. Additionally, he contended that the federal government has no power to regulate domestic relations or interfere in family matters, which belong exclusively to state jurisdiction. Finally, he argued that alimony is not a debt but a conditional allowance dependent on continued conduct, which federal courts of chancery—limited to English precedents that did not handle alimony—cannot enforce.
Analysis:
Barber v. Barber is a foundational case in American family law and federal jurisdiction. It established the 'domestic relations exception' to federal jurisdiction by stating federal courts disclaim jurisdiction over divorce or the allowance of alimony. However, it simultaneously carved out a significant nuance: while federal courts won't grant divorces, they will enforce financial obligations (alimony) arising from state court divorce decrees if diversity of citizenship exists. The case is also critical for establishing that the common law rule of unitary domicile (wife follows husband) is not absolute and breaks upon judicial separation, recognizing a woman's independent legal identity in specific adversarial contexts.
