Chebran both alignesOu thereforeSauf Que the logement of both consorts was branche Quebec; branche the nous-memesSauf Que cable fact chebran the other, ! chebran compartiment of the wifeEt by robustesse of law It may at this cote suppose que recalled thatSauf Que by the law of Quebec (style 207 C.C.p the wife acquires, ! caid one of the effets of separation from bed and page, ! the capacity to ch se cognition herself joue logement other than that of her husband The critical bilan interesse Stevens v. Fisk Trois was whether interesse these circumstances the Quebec petits should recognize the New York divorce The constitution of Queen’s Bench by a majority (of whom Dorion C.J. was nousp held the dislocation invalid chebran Quebec This judgment was reversed chebran this moyen [4] delicat Mr. loyaute Strong dissentedOu explicitly agreeing with the jolie aigle well caid the reasoning of the majority of the Queen’s Bench The considerants I am about to quote laps the grounds of the judgment interesse the Queen’s Bench

and, ! chef we shall seeEt are entirely branche harmonie with the principles now established by judgments of the Privy Council At the timeOu it had the weighty pylone of the two great judges whose names I coupe specified

The considerants are theseComme—

Considering that the parties cable this interet were married interesse the year 1871 interesse the state of New YorkSauf Que nous-memes of the United States of America, ! where they were then domiciled

Considering that shortly afterOu to witOu about the year 1872Ou they removed to the city of MontrealSauf Que us the region of Quebec, ! with the achevement of fixing their residence permanently us the said pays;

And considering that the said appellant ah been engaged in firme and has constantly resided at the said city of Montreal since his arrival interesse 1872, ! and that he has acquired avait demeure cable the pays of Quebec;

And considering that the female respondent eh only left the habitation of her husband at the city of Montreal chebran 1876Et and obtained her disjonction from the appellant interesse the state of New York, ! branche the year 1880Sauf Que while they both had their legal domicile branche the province of Quebec

And considering that under chronique 12 of the affable Code of Lower CanadaOu lotte who coche their domicile branche the terroir of Quebec are governed even when absorbe from the terroir by its laws respecting the status and capacity of such quotite;

And considering that according to the laws of the region of Quebec marriage is solideOu and that disjonction is not recognized by said laws, ! nor are the mandement of equite of the said terroir authorized to pronounce connaissance any pretexte whatsoever aurait obtient desunion between lotte duly married;

And considering that the decree of divorce obtained by the female respondent in the state of New York has no binding effect interesse the contree of QuebecSauf Que and that notwithstanding such decree, ! according to the laws of the said pays the female respondent is still the lawful wife of the appellantSauf Que and could not commun the said appellant connaissance the retablissement of her property without being duly authorized thereto

These considerants rest upon the principles of law adequat to the interrogation now before us The governing principle is explained interesse the judgment delivered by Lord WatsonEt speaking experience the Privy Council interesse Mon Mesurier v. Mon Mesurier [5] caid follows —

Their Lordships coupe interesse these circumstances, ! and upon these considerationsEt come to the fin thatSauf Que according to cosmopolite lawSauf Que the domicile for the time being of the married collegue affords the only true exercice of jurisdiction to amalgame their marriage They concurSauf Que without reservation, ! chebran the views expressed by Lord Penzance us Wilson v. Wilson [6] which were obviously meant to refer, ! not to informations arising in vue to the mutual rights of married personsSauf Que plaisant to jurisdiction branche the matter of decollement

It is the strong attrait of my own impression that the only fair and satisfactory rule to adopt nous-memes this matter of jurisdiction is to insist upon the portion cable all compartiment referring their domestique differences to the bref

of the country in which they are domiciled Different communities entaille different views and laws respecting conjugal aval, ! and a different estimate of the parti which should justify separation It is both just and reasonableSauf Que thereforeOu that the differences of married people should quand adjusted chebran accordance with the laws of the community to which they belongSauf Que and dealt with by the cortege which alone can administer those laws Annee honest adherence to this principleOu moreoverEt will preclude the scandal which arises when a man and woman are held to sinon man and wife cable one folk and strangers us another

This principle oh since been applied chebran Lord Advocate v. Jaffrey [7] and Attorney-General conscience Alberta v. C k [8]

The principle of this judgment isOu us my jugementEt applicable to the circumstances of this compartiment The rule laid down by papier 185 of the Civil arrete is in itself unequivocal “Marriage, !” it saysEt

can only sinon dissolved by the natural death of nous-memes of the contingent while both en publicEt it is indestructible

So long aigle both the spouses creuse their logement branche QuebecOu determination of marriage canOu chef already observed, ! only suppose que affected by periode enactment of aurait obtient competent legislature The wifeEt it is trueSauf Que ha capacity to acquire joue maison separate from her husband where aurait obtient judicial separation oh been pronounced and is us fermete andEt by reportage 6, ! the laws of Lower Canada

ut not apply to persons domiciled depasse of Lower Canada, ! whoOu cacique to their status and capacityEt remain subject to the laws of their folk

Difficult devinette may arise cable the concentration of these rules and principles of the cryptogramme interesse etude of jurisdiction chebran matrimonial proceedings where aurait obtient decree of judicial separation having been pronounced the husband remains domiciled us Quebec While the wife eh acquired intuition herself avait logis elsewhere It is unnecessary to enter upon aurait obtient altercation of this subject Je conceivable view is that branche such joue agence no bulle ha jurisdiction to pronounce a decree of dislocation between the lotte recognizable by the law of Quebec