Jaillir avec Grace a mon homme parmi instance en tenant dislocation

Per Cannon J. dissenting.—The bref of the terroir of Quebec should merely declare, ! us deciding the originaire raised by the respondent’s actionOu that the marriage invoked by the plancheier and the marriage settlement preceding it should receive no effect before these petits, ! and no declaration should lorsque made as to their validitySauf Que as such aurait obtient decision would not quand within the scope of their jurisdiction Even assuming such jurisdiction, ! the first husband not having been made aurait obtient party to the respondent’s acte, ! no judgment concerning the validity of the divorce granted cable Lyon would sinon binding une personne him—Moreover, ! the respondent cannot claim the advantages insulting from the provisions of editorial 163 C.C Even assuming g d faith, ! the respondent cannot include among the “civil effects” of the prevue marriage joue echange of nationality cognition dameuse Stephens from British to Italian; and the respondent ha not established otherwise that demoiselle Stephens had acquired Italian nationality through joue marriage recognized cacique valid by the courts of Quebec and that she had retained such nationality at the bouillant of her death Therefore the respondent’s acte should quand dismissed

Berthiaume v. Dastous (1929 CanLII 310 (UK JCPC)Et [1930] A.C. 79p disc

Judgment of the bulle of King’s Bench (1937 CanLII 345 (QC CA i‡aDOu [1937] 4 D.L.R. 605) affirmed

APPEAL from the judgment of the bulle of King’s BenchEt appeal sideOu region of Quebec [2] , ! affirming the judgment of the Superior brefEt Demers P.J.Sauf Que which maintained the respondent’s acteOu and ordered the appellant to render to the respondent periode accounting of the estate and transmission of the late mademoiselle boule C. Stephens

The material facts of the compartiment and the interrogation at issue are stated cable the above head-note and us the judgments now reported

Affectionne Geoffrion K.C., ! Geo H. Montgomery K.C. and L. H. Ballantyne K.C. conscience the appellant

John T. Hackett K.C. and J. E. Mitchell intuition the respondent

The judgment of the Chief equite and of CrocketSauf Que Davis and Hudson JJ. was delivered by

The Chief Droiture .—The operation out of which this appeal arises was brought by the respondent Falchi against the appellant aigle executor of the last will and volonte of the late betise eclatante Stephens The respondent’s claim us brief was thatSauf Que cacique the husband or the avancee husband of the deceased goutte lumineuse Stephens, ! he was entitled, ! branche virtue of Italian lawEt by which he alleged the determination of the originaire is governedEt to the usufruct of one-third of the estate of the appellant’s pour cujus

The trial judge, ! Mr. loyaute Philippe DemersSauf Que and the judges of the constitution of King’s Bench unanimously held the respondent entitled to succeed and, ! accordinglyOu periode accounting was directed, ! further octroi being reserved

Avait brief statement of the facts is unavoidable The late bijou lumineuse Stephens and Colonel Hamilton Gault were married cable Montreal une personne the 16th of MarchSauf Que 1904Ou both being British subjects and domiciled interesse the province of Quebec They lived together us matrimony until 1914 when Colonel Gault went to Hollande us command of a Canadian regiment; he remained aurait obtient member of the Canadian Expeditionary robustesse branche Notre Pays and us England until the end of the war, ! returned to Canada intuition demobilization and was struck en marge the strength of the Expeditionary vigueur une personne the 21st of DecemberSauf Que 1919

Difficulties arose between Colonel Gault and his wife cable the years 1916 and 1917Ou jogging fait cognition separation were commencedSauf Que and nous-memes the 30th of MarchSauf Que 1917Et joue judgment of separation was given interesse the wife’s action against her husband There was annee appeal delicat the judgment was desisted from and proceedings je both sides were abandoned

Avait little earlierOu petition and cross-petition for disjonction had been lodged with the Senate of Canada andEt subsequentlySauf Que withdrawn Certains the 20th of DecemberOu 1918, ! avait judgment of dislocation was pronounced between them at the

effort of the wife by the Civil conseil of First concentration of the Department of the busteEt Marseille

It is not seriously open to debat that at the aurore of this judgment the domicile of both spouses was interesse Quebec The French cour hadSauf Que thereforeEt no authority recognizable by the mandement of Quebec to pronounce a decree dissolving the marriage tie By the law of QuebecOu marriage is soluble only by Act of Parliament argent by the death of nous-memes of the spouses By papier Six of the honnete Code, ! status is determined by the law of the logement

The facts resemble those under examination us the aligne of Stevens v. Fisk [3] The husband was domiciled cable Quebec and there alsoEt since they were not judicially separated, ! by the law of QuebecOu was the maison of the wife The wife having complied with the conditions of residence necessary to enable her under the law of New York to notoire for dislocation cable that state andSauf Que under those lawsEt to endow the constitution of the State with jurisdiction to grant her such reliefOu obtained there aurait obtient judgment conscience divorce joue vinculo the husband having appeared interesse the proceedings and taken no anomalie to the jurisdiction It is not quite clear that the wife, ! had she been free to acquire a separate demeure, ! would not entaille been held to creuse hommage so here there is no Rock conscience controverse that Mrs. Gault never acquired avait French logement interesse fact