Seventeen. All Remedy Exhausted
Seventeen
All Remedy Exhausted
THE DECISION OF THE
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN THE MATTER OF SCOTT V. SCOTT
OCTOBER 25, 1865
My fellow justices and I have contemplated at length the arguments put forward by both counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, as well as those of the respondent herself, in seeking to resolve what can only be termed a most unfortunate public affair stemming from a most private and intimate union.
Irrespective of the cogency and power of such arguments, the court adheres to the principle of comity wherever possible. Deference to the decision of our counterparts who preside over their own country’s laws is crucial to the concept of nationalism. The court must not act in such a way as to threaten the power of another nation to decide the destiny of its own citizens. We hold to this truth most reverently.
Only one other truth might ever prevail in its stead: the destiny of our own citizens, and of our society as a whole. Should a foreign decision not only not reflect, but also threaten to revert, the meaningful progress we have made as a society, then this court shall consider the impact on the greater good of our society in deciding whether or not to enforce a foreign judgment or decree of any kind.
We understand from counsel that the petitioner has of late reconsidered his application before the court. But in the interest of establishing precedent, we have unanimously agreed to proceed with rendering judgment and our reasoning therefor.
We hold, as a majority of the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that the progress we have made as a society in recognizing the right of all women, spinster or bride, mother or daughter, to retain any and all property, real or personal, that they may receive prior to and during any marriage, such right being pursuant both to the Married Women’s Property Act of 1855 and, most importantly, to the principle of liberty, freedom, and justice for all as enshrined in the constitution of these United States, prevails over a contrary decision by a foreign court. Accordingly, we hereby decline to issue an order for the enforcement in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of the writ of seizure obtained by the petitioner in the matrimonial court of England and Wales, and consider this matter judicially resolved, decided, and fully and permanently exhausted of any and all remedy under law, now and forever.
Signed by the following Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts:
Adam Fulbright, Chief Justice
Conor Langstaff, Associate Justice
Philip Mackenzie, Associate Justice
Writing for the Dissent:
Roderick Norton, Associate Justice
With Ezekiel Peabody, Associate Justice, joining
The concept of comity between nations in respect of the enforcement of laws, should parties elect to enter into contracts outside the borders of their own country, shall prevail over all other concerns, political, social, or economic. This is a long-standing principle of both international private law and our own common law, which must take precedence over the legislative winds that too often blow hither and thither, bestowing rights here, limiting rights there. We therefore dissent from the decision of the majority and would order the recognition by our great state of the writ of seizure issued by the English court in favor of the petitioner.