Opinion
6 Div. 555.
May 13, 1954.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Alta L. King, J.
Jerry O. Lorant, Birmingham, for appellant.
When a complaint is not sufficient to state a cause of action, the judgment may be vacated on motion at any later time on the application of a party affected. Johnson v. Johnson's Adm'r, 40 Ala. 247; Buchanan v. Thomason, 70 Ala. 401; Wiggins v. Steiner, 103 Ala. 655, 16 So. 8; Chamblee v. Cole, Ala. 649, 30 So. 630; Sweeney v. Tritsch, 151 Ala. 242, 44 So. 184; State v. Smith, 215 Ala. 449, 111 So. 28; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Williams, 113 Ala. 402, 21 So. 938; Kirkland v. Pilcher,
174 Ala. 170, 57 So. 46; Ballenger Const. Co. v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 236 Ala. 548(5), 184 So. 275; Woodward Iron Co. v. Burges, 219 Ala. 136, 121 So. 399; Jasper v. Eddins, 208 Ala. 431, 94 So. 516; National Building Loan Ass'n v. Ballard, 126 Ala. 155, 27 So. 971; Chandler v. Price, 244 Ala. 667, 15 So.2d 462. Fraud is not a ground for annulment and cannot invalidate a marriage contract under the English Law. 27 English and Empire Digest, 36; Moss v. Moss, 263; 77 L.T. 220, 45 W.R. 635, 13 T.L.R. 459, 66 L.J.P. 154. Only the law of the place by which the marriage came into being has the power to annul it. That is, the lex loci of the marriage contract is the law governing the tribunal which renders the annulment. Wall v. Williamson, 8 Ala. 48; Gwin v. Gwin, 219 Ala. 552, 122 So. 648; Hamlet v. Hamlet, 242 Ala. 70, 4 So.2d 901.
Pointer Hawkins, Albert Boutwell, Jas. M. Fullam, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee.
A motion to set aside, annul or vacate a judgment or decree filed after the period prescribed by statute on the grounds that said judgment or decree is void, is a collateral attack. Chandler v. Price, 244 Ala. 667, 15 So.2d 462; Florence Gin Co. v. City of Florence, 226 Ala. 478, 147 So. 417; Penton v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., 222 Ala. 155, 131 So. 14; Taylor v. Jones, 202 Ala. 18, 79 So. 356. The judgment of a court which has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties and possesses the power to render the particular judgment is immune from collateral attack. Chandler v. Price, supra; Farrell v. Farrell, 243 Ala. 389, 10 So.2d 153; State v. Clements, 217 Ala. 685, 117 So. 296; Taylor v. Jones, supra. A circuit court of Alabama, in equity has jurisdiction to render decrees annuling marriages. Hamlet v. Hamlet, 242 Ala. 70, 4 So.2d 901; Newman v. Sigler, 220 Ala. 426, 125 So. 666; Henley v. Foster, 220 Ala. 420, 125 So. 662; Taylor v. Taylor, 249 Ala. 419, 31 So.2d 579. Such court has jurisdiction to consider a bill filed by a resident against a non-resident who enters a voluntary appearance in said cause, and to grant a decree of annulment based thereon, even though the marriage ceremony was performed in another state or country. Hamlet v. Hamlet, supra. The courts of Alabama do not take judicial notice of the laws or statutes of another state or country, but same must be pleaded and proved. Southern Express Co. v. Owens, 146 Ala. 412, 41 So. 752, 8 L.R.A., N.S. 369; Smith v. Blinn, 221 Ala. 24, 127 So. 155; Dollahite-Levy Co. v. Overton, 223 Ala. 12, 133 So. 903; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Outlaw, 36 Ala. App. 278, 60 So.2d 367.
The appeal is from a decree of the circuit court in equity overruling a motion to set aside a former decree of the court annulling the marriage theretofore undertaken between the parties.
The marriage ceremony was performed May 22, 1948, in Nassau, the Bahamas, a British possession. Thereafter in July, 1948, the appellee filed a bill in the Jefferson County Circuit Court, in equity, alleging that the marriage ceremony was procured by fraud, deceit and misrepresentation of the respondent (appellant). On answer of the respondent duly filed, testimony was taken to prove the allegations of the bill and the court on August 4, 1948, entered a decree granting relief and annulling the marriage. The present decree from which this appeal has proceeded was rendered January 23, 1953, overruling the above referred to motion filed the same day.
The contention of the appellant is that the decree of annulment was void because the original bill of complaint upon which the decree was rested failed to allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to support such decree. The contention cannot be sustained.
There can be no doubt that courts of equity in this state are fully empowered to render decrees annulling marriages. Hamlet v. Hamlet, 242 Ala. 70, 4 So.2d 901; Newman v. Sigler, 220 Ala. 426, 125 So. 666; Henley v. Foster, 220 Ala. 420, 125 So. 662; Taylor v. Taylor, 249 Ala. 419, 31 So.2d 579.
The motion to vacate the original decree, filed many years after its rendition, was a collateral attack on it and unless the decree was void on its face the motion could not prevail. However defectively pleaded in stating a cause of action, if the complaint invoked the power of the equity court over the subject matter within its jurisdiction, with the necessary parties, a decree rendered thereon would not be void so as to be subject to vacation on collateral attack. Chandler v. Price, 244 Ala. 667, 670, 15 So.2d 462; Florence Gin Co. v. City of Florence, 226 Ala. 478, 147 So. 417; Penton v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., 222 Ala. 155, 131 So. 14.
Jurisdiction of the subject matter means the power to adjudge concerning the general question involved and is not dependent upon the state of facts which may appear in a particular case which may have arisen under the general question, and if the bill states a case belonging to the general class over which the authority of the court extends, the jurisdiction of the court attaches and no error committed by the court can render the judgment void. So, the judgment or decree of the court which has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties and possesses the power to render the particular judgment or decree is immune from collateral attack. Farrell v. Farrell, 243 Ala. 389, 10 So.2d 153; Chandler v. Price, supra; Taylor v. Taylor, supra.
This court has also ruled that the courts of the domicile of one of the parties, when the other party is brought into court by due and proper service, has jurisdiction to annul a marriage celebrated elsewhere. Hence the fact that the appellant was a nonresident of the state, an alien, would not militate against the principles above enunciated. Hamlet v. Hamlet, supra; 55 C.J.S., Marriage, § 52, p. 930.
The basis of the appellant's contention that the annulment proceedings were void is that the validity of a marriage is to be determined by the law of the place where the marriage was contracted, and that under English law fraud is not a ground for the annulment of a marriage contract. Without entering into a discussion of this question, it is sufficient to say that the courts of Alabama do not take judicial notice of the laws of other states or countries or of the law as expressed and applied in their judicial decisions. Smith v. Blinn, 221 Ala. 24, 127 So. 155; Southern Exp. Co. v. Owens, 146 Ala. 412, 41 So. 752, 8 L.R.A., N.S., 369.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the claimed invalidity of the annulment proceedings not appearing on the face of the record cannot be raised on this collateral attack and the trial court ruled correctly in overruling the motion to vacate the annulment decree.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN and MERRILL, JJ., concur.