Williams v. North Carolina

Supreme Court of the United States · 1943 · Family Law

317 U.S. 287 (1943)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawmigratory divorcefull faith and creditdivorcedomicileconstructive serviceprocedural due processmarital status

Facts

Williams and Hendrix were each married in North Carolina and lived there with their respective spouses until May 1940, when they went to Nevada. Each filed for divorce in Nevada; the absent spouses were neither served in Nevada nor appeared, and service was constructive or substituted. The Nevada court granted both divorces after finding each petitioner to be a bona fide and continuous resident of Nevada for the required period, and petitioners married each other in Nevada before returning to North Carolina. North Carolina prosecuted them for bigamous cohabitation, and the jury was instructed that Nevada decrees based on substituted service without appearance would not be recognized in North Carolina.

Issue

Must North Carolina, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, recognize Nevada divorce decrees that dissolved the marriages of Nevada domiciliaries when the absent spouses were not personally served in Nevada and did not appear? Also, can the convictions stand when the general verdict may have rested on the unconstitutional ground that such decrees were invalid solely for lack of personal jurisdiction over the absent spouses?

Rule

When a court of one state, acting consistently with procedural due process, grants a divorce that alters the marital status of a spouse domiciled in that state, the decree is entitled to full faith and credit in sister states as to marital status, even though the absent spouse was served only by substituted or constructive service and did not appear. A general verdict cannot stand if it may have rested on a ground invalid under the Federal Constitution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz lived in Ohio, moved to Reno, Nevada, and became a bona fide domiciliary there under Nevada law. She filed for divorce from her husband, who remained in Ohio; he was served by constitutionally adequate publication and mailed notice, did not appear, and the Nevada court granted the divorce. After Lena remarried, Ohio refused to recognize the divorce solely because the husband had not been personally served in Nevada.

If Lena challenges Ohio's refusal, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that when a court of one state, acting consistently with procedural due process, grants a divorce affecting the marital status of a spouse domiciled there, sister states must give that decree full faith and credit as to status, even if the absent spouse was served only constructively and did not appear. The forum state's stricter divorce policy does not create an exception.