107 US 319 Roth v. Ehman

107 U.S. 319

2 S.Ct. 312

27 L.Ed. 499

EHMAN and others.

March 19, 1883.

C. M. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

Julius Rosenthal and A. M. Pence, for defendant in error.


view counter

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 section 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.


The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is granted.