Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Roth Vs. Ehman

Roth vs Ehman

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-19-1883
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/84562

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
107 U.S. 319
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Roth

Respondent

Ehman

Excerpt

roth v. ehman - 107 u.s. 319 (1883) u.s. supreme court roth v. ehman, 107 u.s. 319 (1883) roth v. ehman decided march 19, 1883 107 u.s. 319 motion to dismiss a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of illinois syllabus this court has no jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment of a state court recognizing as valid the decree of a foreign court annulling a marriage. the case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. the only question is this case controverted below was whether madelaine roth, the plaintiff in error, was the widow of john george roth, deceased, and that depended entirely on the validity of the decree of the royal matrimonial court of elwangen, in the kingdom of wurtemburg, annulling the marriage of the parties. the supreme court of illinois decided in favor of the validity of the wurtemburg decree, and consequently that the plaintiff in error was not the widow of the decedent and not entitled to dower in his estate or to inheritance under the laws of illinois. this presents no question of which we can take cognizance under sec. 709 of the revised statutes. no right, title, privilege, or immunity which could be claimed under the authority of the united states was involved, and the validity of no treaty or statute of, or any authority exercised under, the united states was drawn in question. neither was there any statute or authority of the state relied on which was in conflict with the constitution, treaties, or laws of the united states. motion granted.

Full Judgment

Roth v. Ehman - 107 U.S. 319 (1883)
U.S. Supreme Court Roth v. Ehman, 107 U.S. 319 (1883)

Roth v. Ehman

Decided March 19, 1883

107 U.S. 319

MOTION TO DISMISS A WRIT OF ERROR TO THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

SYLLABUS

This Court has no jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment of a state court recognizing as valid the decree of a foreign court annulling a marriage.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only question is this case controverted below was whether Madelaine Roth, the plaintiff in error, was the widow of John George Roth, deceased, and that depended entirely on the validity of the decree of the Royal Matrimonial Court of Elwangen, in the Kingdom of Wurtemburg, annulling the marriage of the parties. The Supreme Court of Illinois decided in favor of the validity of the Wurtemburg decree, and consequently that the plaintiff in error was not the widow of the decedent and not entitled to dower in his estate or to inheritance under the laws of Illinois. This presents no question of which we can take cognizance under sec. 709 of the Revised Statutes. No right, title, privilege, or immunity which could be claimed under the authority of the United States was involved, and the validity of no treaty or statute of, or any authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question. Neither was there any statute or authority of the state relied on which was in conflict with the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States.

Motion granted.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial