Statement of the Case.

these could not be adjudicated in the absence of Harper as a party, and we therefore think the court below did not err in sustaining the demurrer for that reason.

Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the decree of the court below, in sustaining the demurrer, and in dismissing the bill, should be

Affirmed.

ISRAEL v. ARTHUR.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

No. 903. Submitted January 29, 1894.- Decided March 12, 1894.

This court has no jurisdiction to revise the decision of the highest court of a State, in an action at law, upon a pure question of fact, although a Federal question might arise if the question of fact were decided in a particular way.

The decision by the highest court of a State that a woman divorced from her husband in a proceeding instituted by him and by a decree which does not bind her, who marries another husband, and lives with him as his wife, is thereby estopped, after the death of the first husband, from setting up a claim to a widow's share in the distribution of his estate, presents no Federal question for revision by this court.

MOTION to dismiss. Abbie A. Israel, under the name of Abbie A. Arthur, filed her petition in the county court of Laramie County, Colorado, in the matter of the estate of John Arthur, deceased, May 17, 1881, alleging that John Arthur died intestate and without children; that she was his widow; that James B. Arthur had been appointed administrator and was in possession of decedent's property, and committing breaches of his duty as such; that he, as a brother of John Arthur, and certain other brothers and sisters, and descendants of a deceased sister, claimed to be entitled to the estate as heirs at law; and that the relationship of petitioner to the decedent and her rights in his estate were ignored; and she prayed that she might be declared the sole distributee of said estate, and heir at law of John Arthur, deceased, and that the administrator be required to account accordingly. The defendant an

Statement of the Case.

swered, denying any misappropriation of the estate, and that the petitioner was then or ever had been the widow of John Arthur; and for a second defence, defendant, admitting the intermarriage of petitioner with John Arthur, alleged that on February 9, 1875, a decree was duly entered by the county court of Laramie County in favor of John Arthur and against petitioner, dissolving the bonds of matrimony theretofore existing between them; and for a further defence alleged that on June 12, 1877, a second decree of divorce was duly made and entered in said court in favor of John Arthur and against petitioner. Replication was filed July 21, 1881, denying the new matter in the answer. On March 30, 1884, petitioner filed her amended and supplemental petition to her original petition, wherefrom it appeared that the judgment of the county court on the trial of the issues made as above stated was against petitioner, but that that judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of Colorado, as were also the decrees of divorce of 1875 and 1877, both of which were held to be null and void and of no effect for want of jurisdiction. Israel v. Arthur, 7 Colorado, 5; Id. 12; 6 Colorado, 85.

The amended and supplemental petition detailed alleged misfeasances and wastes of the administrator and reiterated petitioner's claim to the proceeds of the estate as the widow of John Arthur, and prayed relief. The amended and supplemental answer of the defendant, filed April 9, 1884, admitted that the decrees of divorce were voidable at the option of petitioner for want of due and legal service upon her, but averred that after the decrees were rendered, petitioner, with full knowledge thereof, "ratified, affirmed, assented to, and acquiesced in the same and each of them in this, to wit, in that after the same had been rendered and in the lifetime of the said John Arthur, the said defendant,by force and virtue of the said decrees and under and in pursuance thereof, entered voluntarily into a contract of marriage with one James H. Israel and caused and procured the said contract of marriage to be duly and legally solemnized, and thereunder took upon herself and assumed the relations of wife to the said James H. Israel, and thenceforward and at all times thereafter continuously, by virtue of

Statement of the Case.

the said solemnization of said marriage contract, lived and cohabited with the said James H. Israel as his wife until and ever since the death of the said John Arthur."

The answer also set forth the particulars of the elopement of petitioner with and marriage to Israel, and grounds why it had been impossible for the administrator to learn the facts in time to plead them to the original petition.

In a further answer, filed the same day, the charges of waste and misfeasance were denied. To this answer a demurrer was interposed April 28, 1884. A further supplemental answer was filed August 28, 1884, setting up that the administrator had in all things faithfully discharged the duties of his trust and administered the estate and was ready to make his final accounting whenever required by order of court. To this answer a replication was filed by petitioner September 23, 1884.

The record proper does not show the action either of the county court or of the Supreme Court on these pleadings, but in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Colorado in this case it appears that judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner and the cause again taken to the Supreme Court, which held that the facts set up in the amended answer were sufficient to debar or estop petitioner from claiming any property rights as the widow of John Arthur, deceased.

Upon the cause being again remanded to the county court. the petitioner filed a new replication, January 27, 1891, to the amended and supplemental answer of the administrator, averring the alleged decrees of divorce to be absolute nullities, and that the Supreme Court of the State had so declared, and that the administrator was thereby estopped from saying that she was not the widow of John Arthur when he died; and the replication proceeded as follows:

"And this petitioner avers that she is a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State of Colorado, and, as widow of said John Arthur, deceased, as aforesaid, she became at his death the sole heir of his said estate, consisting of certain lands, tenements, and hereditaments and personal property at the said county of Laramie, and as such heir-at-law of him,

Statement of the Case.

the said John Arthur, the said lands, tenements, and hereditaments immediately vested in her and she is now and ever since has been seized of the same and entitled to the possession, use, and enjoyment of the same; that the personal estate of him, the said John Arthur, was and is more than sufficient to pay all the debts of him, the said John Arthur, and that she, the said petitioner, as such sole heir, is the sole distributee of the said personal estate after the payment of said debts and the cost of administration, and the same and the right thereto became thereupon vested in her and thence hitherto has been vested in her as an indefeasible right guaranteed to her by the laws and constitution of the State of Colorado and by the Constitution of the United States, and that she has never been summoned or impleaded in any court or action in which any of her said rights or property have been adjudged lost, forfeited, or taken from her by any due process of law; that the Supreme Court of this State in its judgments heretofore rendered has declared and adjudged that this petitioner was the widow of the said John Arthur at the time of his decease, and that such decisions constitute the law of this case, and that by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado she is, as such widow, the sole heir of him, the said John Arthur; that a judgment of this court dismissing her said petition and giving her said property to others would, if affirmed by the Supreme Court of this State, be the taking of her private property without due process of law, in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; that a judgment of this court dismissing her said petition for the commission of supposed crimes averred in said supplemental answer to have been committed by her would, if affirmed by the Supreme Court of this State, constitute an ex post facto law of the State of Colorado, in contravention of section ten, article one, of the Constitution of the United States; that a judgment of this court dismissing her said petition for the supposed crimes alleged in said supplemental answer to have been committed by her would, if affirmed by the Supreme Court of this State, constitute a law of attainder of the State

Statement of the Case.

of Colorado, in contravention of section ten, article one, of the Constitution of the United States; that a judgment of this court dismissing her said petition and transferring her said property to others would, if affirmed by the Supreme Court of this State, constitute an act of judicial legislation without the sanction of law and against the rights of this petitioner guaranteed to her by both the constitution of this State and the Constitution of 'the United States.

"And this petitioner denies that after the said pretended decrees of divorce were rendered, she with full or any knowledge that they had been rendered, or otherwise or at all, ratified or affirmed or assented to or acquiesced in the same or either of them; denies that there were any decrees to ratify, affirm, assent to, or acquiesce in, and avers that the pretended judgments and decrees of divorce mentioned in said amended and supplémental answer were nil and could not be ratified or affirmed or assented to or acquiesced in by her.

"Denies that said pretended judgments or decrees of divorce had or were of any force or virtue; denies that in the lifetime of the said John Arthur, by force and virtue of said pretended decrees or under or in pursuance thereof or otherwise, she entered voluntarily or otherwise into a contract of marriage with one James H. Israel; denies that she caused or procured any contract of marriage to be duly or legally or at all solemnized between herself and the said James H. Israel in the lifetime of the said John Arthur; denies that any contract of marriage could have been duly and legally solemnized between her and the said James H. Israel in the lifetime of her late husband, the said John Arthur, deceased; and this said petitioner denies that in the lifetime of said John Arthur, upon the supposed knowledge that the said pretended decrees of divorce had been rendered coming to the said petitioner and the said James H. Israel, she desired to use the said supposed privilege conferred by said pretended decrees or to accept the supposed benefit thereof, and denies that she procured a marriage to be solemnized between her and the said James H. Israel in the lifetime of her late husband, John Arthur, deceased, and she avers that said pretended decrees of