## Facts

- Kate H. Andrews was married to Charles S. Andrews; they were domiciliaries of Massachusetts.
- Charles traveled to South Dakota, remained only long enough to satisfy that state’s statutory residence period, and obtained a divorce on grounds not sufficient under Massachusetts law.
- Massachusetts factfinders determined Charles went to South Dakota solely to procure the divorce, intended to return to Massachusetts after obtaining it, stayed in a hotel, and had no other business in South Dakota.
- Kate participated in the South Dakota divorce proceeding through counsel, received notice, answered, and a settlement agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree.
- After the South Dakota decree, Charles married Annie Andrews in Massachusetts; they lived there until Charles died.
- In Massachusetts probate proceedings, both Kate and Annie claimed to be Charles’s lawful widow and sought appointment as administratrix of his estate.
- Massachusetts courts refused to recognize the South Dakota divorce under a Massachusetts statute denying effect to out-of-state divorces obtained by Massachusetts inhabitants who go elsewhere to obtain a divorce for a Massachusetts-based cause, or for a cause that would not authorize divorce under Massachusetts law.
- Kate sought U.S. Supreme Court review, arguing that Massachusetts’ refusal to recognize the South Dakota decree violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause required Massachusetts to recognize a South Dakota divorce decree obtained by a Massachusetts domiciliary who did not acquire a bona fide domicile in South Dakota.
2. Whether Massachusetts could constitutionally apply a statute denying effect to such out-of-state divorces obtained in evasion of Massachusetts divorce law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Massachusetts judgment.
- Massachusetts was not constitutionally required to give effect to the South Dakota divorce decree where the divorcing court lacked jurisdiction because Charles did not acquire a bona fide South Dakota domicile.
- Massachusetts’ statute denying effect to such divorces, as applied, did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
- As a result, the South Dakota divorce was ineffective in Massachusetts, and Kate—not Annie—was treated as the lawful widow for administering Charles’s Massachusetts estate.

## Legal Principles

- Full faith and credit does not compel recognition of a sister-state judgment entered without jurisdiction; another state may examine jurisdictional facts, including genuine domicile in divorce cases.
- Domicile, not merely technical or formal residence, supplies jurisdictional authority to grant a divorce entitled to interstate recognition.
- A state may treat a “migratory” divorce obtained by its domiciliaries in evasion of its divorce laws as void within the state, consistent with the Constitution.
- Domestic relations, including marriage and divorce, are primarily governed by state authority; constitutional provisions cannot be applied so broadly as to nullify state control over such matters.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Massachusetts could refuse to recognize a South Dakota divorce obtained by a Massachusetts domiciliary who never established a bona fide South Dakota domicile, and that applying Massachusetts’ anti-evasion statute did not violate full faith and credit.


Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14 (1903)