We have already shown by many authorities that the courts of equity have the power to interfere in the enforcement of a maintenance order and in cases decided by this Court of Justice; that the jurisdiction of the courts of equity of the United States is the same as that of England, from which it derives. On this point alone, the jurisdiction of the court in the dispute before us cannot be successfully denied. 5. Article 119 of the Treaty shall apply directly to all forms of discrimination which can be established only on the basis of the criteria of equal work and pay referred to in that provision, without it being necessary to take national or Community measures to define them more precisely. The national court seised of that provision must respect the rights which it confers on individuals, in particular where a private occupational pension scheme, which partly replaces the statutory scheme, refuses to pay an immediate pension to a man made redundant, as would be granted in a similar case to a woman. von Warrender v. Warrender, 9 Bligh. 103, 104. In the present case, Lord Brougham makes the fact that the husband and wife lived apart by agreement and not by judgment of divorce the basis of the judgment.
The general rule is that a voluntary separation of the wife does not confer any residence in the law other than that of her husband. If, however, as is the case here, the husband renounces his residence and his wife in order to get rid of all the conjugal obligations imposed on him by the conjugal relationship, giving him neither the necessary nor the comfort appropriate to his condition and property, and completely renouncing his matrimonial control and protection, He renounces this power and authority over her, which alone makes her home his home, and puts her in a position to sue him for divorce a mensa et thoro and to ask the court competent for her action to provide him with adequate alimony and maintenance of her husband`s maintenance. If this has been done, it becomes a judicial obligation towards the husband, which can be enforced against his person by execution or seizure issued by the court that issued the decision, and if this is not possible because the husband has left this jurisdiction or has fled another, if the procedure of this court cannot reach him, The wife may sue him through her next boyfriend, wherever he is or has acquired a new residence, in order to claim the maintenance to which he is entitled or to transfer the decree to a judgment having the same effect as in the State in which the decree was issued. The alimony granted to a woman in the event of divorce from the separation of bed and food is as much a fault of the file until the judgment has been recalled, as any other judgment for money. If he is not paid, the wife can sue her husband in an equity court, as this is an incident of this condition, which gave her the right to sue him from her next boyfriend for divorce. For the purposes of the review, we assume that the applicant`s judgment on accrued support is not entitled to full faith and credit if it can be changed under North Carolina law. The Tennessee Supreme Court`s refusal to recognize this decision by its very nature is a decision on a federal law, and the grounds for rejection are sufficient, this court must decide. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430, 443, 64 p.Ct. 208, 215, 216, 150 A.L.R.
413, and cited cases. And in determining the applicable law of North Carolina, this court considers the matter in light of the opinion of the Tennessee Court, although we cannot accept its view of the North Carolina law as conclusive. This is not a case where a question of local law lies in the particular perception of the district courts in which the case occurred. The determination of North Carolina law can be made by this court as easily as by the courts of Tenneessee, and since a federal law is invoked, it is the duty of this court to determine the law of North Carolina itself after an independent investigation. See Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 64, 58 p. Ct. 454, 457 and the cases cited. Cases raised against the right of a wife divorced from bed and food to choose a place of residence for herself do not apply.
Donegal vs. Donegal, in 1 Addam`s Ecclesiastical 8, 19. Those of Shachell v. Shachell, quoted in Whitcomb v. Whitcomb, 9 Curtteis Ecclesiastical 352, are decisions about the wife`s place of residence if she lives separately from her husband by mutual consent, but not under decrees separating the wife from the husband`s bed and food. The main case in the same circumstances is that the same thing has happened in other cases in that State. It is now a doctrine established there and in some of our other States. They consider that a divorce decree with support is as much a judgment as if it had been obtained on the common law side of the court. In Sistare v Sistare, loc. cit., 218 U.S. 16, 17, 30 p.ct. 686, 28 R.S.A., N.S., 1068, 20 Ann.Cas.
In 1061, this Court considered whether an executive order on future support had been issued to a sister state [323 U.S. 77, 80], was entitled to full confidence and credit, that is, to accumulated payments which, however, had not been reduced to a new judgment. The Court ruled that a decree on future maintenance payments under the Constitution and the law is entitled to overdue payments if the right to it is “absolute and vested”, even though the decree could be amended by future court orders in the future. See also Barber v. Barber, 21 how. 582. The Sistare case also held that such a decree was not final and was therefore not entitled to credit if the overdue payments were modified or recalled retroactively by the court after their restitution. See also Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183, 187, 21 pp.Ct.
555, 556, 45 L.ed. 810. I do not consider it necessary to prove, moreover, as has already been done in this Opinion, that the Tribunal`s test of fairness was the appropriate judge for the present case. However, we examined the accuracy and applicability of several of the cases cited in his reasoning by counsel for the complainant in order to maintain this point and consider it crucial. that they cannot simultaneously become citizens of different states within the meaning of the Federal Constitution and that, therefore, the lower court did not have jurisdiction. It has also been said that in order to bring divorce proceedings, they can indeed acquire separate residences, but this is an exception based solely on necessity, and that the legal residence of the wife until the dissolution of the marriage is the domicile of the husband and is changed with a change in his place of residence. Discussion. Note that the U.S. Supreme Court has approved the distinction between the situation in which a physician allows a patient to die as a result of stopping treatment and the situation in which the physician administers a lethal injection.
The former, as in the present case, is considered an omission, while the latter is considered an affirmative act and amounts to murder. For a number of considerations which seem to me to be essentially important, I am obliged to oppose them in the present case by a majority of the Court. Applied to Barber, Hyde concluded that while media coverage of health care and medicine falls under the category of appropriate public interest, that interest can be satisfied without flaring names and publishing images of individual health patients without their consent. « 1. Where a group of workers is forcibly dismissed by its employer in circumstances similar to those of the present case and receives benefits linked to such dismissal, all such benefits shall be `paid` within the meaning of Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and the Equal Remuneration Directive ( 75/117/EEC ) or fall within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive ( 76/207/EEC ), or neither? Except in such cases, an undercover woman cannot take legal action unless she is with her husband, since she is under the protection of her husband, and a lawsuit that respects her rights must be brought with her husband`s consent and cooperation.