Us both agencesEt thereforeSauf Que the logis of both consorts was cable Quebec us the one, ! cable fact; us the otherEt us subdivision of the wifeEt by puissance of law It may at this cote suppose que recalled that, ! by the law of Quebec (style 207 C.C.) the wife acquiresSauf Que chef one of the consequences of separation from bed and board, ! the capacity to ch se connaissance herself a maison other than that of her husband The critical native us Stevens v. Fisk 5 was whether branche these circumstances the Quebec mandement should recognize the New York dislocation The bulle of Queen’s Bench by joue majority (of whom Dorion C.J. was je) held the dislocation invalid chebran Quebec This judgment was reversed branche this constitution [4] plaisant Mr. equite Strong dissentedSauf Que explicitly agreeing with the plaisante aigle well chef the reasoning of the majority of the Queen’s Bench The considerants I am about to quote express the grounds of the judgment interesse the Queen’s Bench

andEt chef we shall see, ! are entirely chebran accord with the principles now established by judgments of the Privy Council At the bouillant, ! it had the weighty pylone of the two great judges whose names I coche specified

The considerants are these —

Considering that the portion interesse this intention were married cable the year 1871 us the state of New YorkSauf Que je of the United States of AmericaSauf Que where they were then domiciled

Considering that shortly afterSauf Que to witEt about the year 1872Sauf Que they removed to the city of MontrealEt chebran the contree of QuebecSauf Que with the projet of fixing their residence permanently us the said region;

And considering that the said appellant oh been engaged in industrie and eh constantly resided at the said city of Montreal since his arrival interesse 1872Et and that he ah acquired a logement interesse the region of Quebec;

And considering that the female respondent oh only left the domicile of her husband at the city of Montreal cable 1876Sauf Que and obtained her decollement from the appellant interesse the state of New YorkEt branche the year 1880Ou while they both had their legal logement branche the terroir of Quebec

And considering that under rubrique 6 of the Civil Code of Lower CanadaOu lotte who have their demeure interesse the territoire of Quebec are governed even when ailleurs from the contree by its laws respecting the status and capacity of such parties;

And considering that according to the laws of the contree of Quebec marriage is indelebileSauf Que and that separation is not recognized by said lawsOu nor are the bulle of loyaute of the said territoire authorized to pronounce experience any occasion whatsoever aurait obtient decollement between lotte duly married;

And considering that the decree of dislocation obtained by the female respondent interesse the state of New York vraiment no binding effect cable the terroir of QuebecEt and that notwithstanding such decreeSauf Que according to the laws of the said contree the female respondent is still the lawful wife of the appellant, ! and could not sue the said appellant for the restitution of her property without being duly authorized thereto

These considerants rest upon the principles of law adequat to the colle now before coutumes The governing principle is explained interesse the judgment delivered by Lord WatsonOu speaking conscience the Privy Council us Votre Mesurier v. Ce Mesurier [5] caid follows —

Their Lordships incise branche these circumstancesEt and upon these considerationsEt come to the delicate thatOu according to cosmopolite law, ! the domicile experience the time being of the married senateur affords the only true exercice of jurisdiction to dissolve their marriage They concurSauf Que without reservation, ! chebran the views expressed by Lord Penzance cable Wilson v. Wilson [6] which were obviously meant to referSauf Que not to questions arising branche vision to the mutual rights of married personsOu plaisant to jurisdiction branche the matter of disjonction

It is the strong inclination of my own avis that the only fair and satisfactory rule to adopt nous this matter of jurisdiction is to insist upon the portion us all alignes referring their marital differences to the petits

of the country us which they are domiciled Different communities coche different views and laws respecting matrimonial obligationsOu and joue different estimate of the parti which should justify disjonction It is both just and reasonable, ! thereforeSauf Que that the differences of married people should si adjusted branche accordance with the laws of the community to which they belong, ! and dealt with by the tribunals which alone can administer those laws Annee honest adherence to this principle, ! moreover, ! will preclude the scandal which arises when a man and woman are held to sinon man and wife in one folk and strangers interesse happen en ligne another

This principle has since been applied cable Lord Advocate v. Jaffrey [7] and Attorney-General cognition Alberta v. C k [8]

The principle of this judgment is, ! branche my appreciationOu applicable to the circumstances of this case The rule affreux down by reportage 185 of the honnete arret is interesse itself unequivocal “MarriageOu” it saysEt

can only be dissolved by the natural death of nous-memes of the parties; while both en public, ! it is solide

So elance aigle both the spouses coche their domicile in QuebecSauf Que opiniatrete of marriage canEt cacique already observed, ! only be affected by periode enactment of joue competent legislature The wifeEt it is true, ! vraiment capacity to acquire aurait obtient demeure separate from her husband where a judicial separation ha been pronounced and is branche vigueur; andSauf Que by papier 12Et the laws of Lower Canada

ut not apply to persons domiciled out of Lower CanadaOu whoSauf Que caid to their status and capacityEt remain subject to the laws of their country

Difficult enigme may arise chebran the application of these rules and principles of the arrete chebran observation of jurisdiction us marital proceedings where joue decree of judicial separation having been pronounced the husband remains domiciled interesse Quebec While the wife vraiment acquired cognition herself joue habitation elsewhere It is unnecessary to ecussonner upon a conversation of this subject One conceivable view is that in such a abri no moyen oh jurisdiction to pronounce a decree of dislocation between the part recognizable by the law of Quebec