[156] _Acts Passed at the First Session of the Leg. Council of the Ter. of Orleans_ (1805), 454-56. On May 1, 1805, a divorce was granted to James Elliot and Sophia his wife: _ibid._, 456-58.
This example found frequent imitation both before and after the state of Louisiana was organized. By March 3, 1827, forty-six legislative divorces had been granted.[157] With these, however, the history of such cases comes to an end; for, a few days later, exclusive jurisdiction in all divorce matters was bestowed upon the courts;[158] and the policy thus adopted by statute was ratified by the constitution of 1845.[159]
[157] LISLET, _Gen. Digest_, II, Appendix, 25, 26, gives the list, with dates. These divorce acts, as usual, fill each but two or three lines in the statute-book, and usually the cause is not assigned. For examples see _Acts_ (1822), 12; _ibid._ (1826), 34, 58, 60, 62, 222; and _ibid._ (1827), 12, 18, 24.
[158] By the act of March 19, 1827: _Acts_, 130-35.
[159] Const. of 1845, Art. CXVII: POORE, _Charters_, I, 721; also Const. of 1852, Art. CXIV: POORE, _op. cit._, I, 735; _Civil Code_ (1853), 19; Const. of 1864, Art. CXVII; and Const. of 1868, Art. CXIII: POORE, _op. cit._, I, 750, 767.
A federal law in 1886 prohibits legislative divorce in any of the territories of the United States. Previous to that date, however, it had existed in Arizona. During the single session of 1879 seventeen divorces were granted by legislative decree; and the practice may have continued until stopped by congressional authority.[160]
[160] Fifteen of these divorces were granted by the one act of Feb. 7, 1879: _Acts and Resolutions_ (1879), 5-8; for the others see _ibid._, 46, 112; and compare the act of Congress of July 30, 1886: _Statutes at Large_, XXIV, 170. In the same year, 1879, twenty-eight divorces were granted by the courts of Arizona, and five in the year before: WRIGHT, _Report_, 151.
Kentucky refrained from any divorce legislation until 1809, when jurisdiction was conferred upon the circuit courts.[161] But the jurisdiction was not exclusive; for year by year until 1850, when the usual constitutional interdict appears,[162] the session laws show the assembly engaged in passing divorce decrees.[163] In the meantime provision was made for notice to the adverse party. By the act of 1837, in case of residents of the state, there must be one month's written notice in which the ground of the intended application to the legislature shall be set forth; while, if the defendant is a non-resident, publication of the notice for four weeks in some "authorized" newspaper "may supersede the necessity of personal service." When a divorce is granted on such application, the wife shall receive back the estate which the husband had with her at the marriage, unless she has been guilty of conduct such as by the laws of the state would forfeit her right of dower; and when the husband's conduct is the cause of separation, she is entitled to the same share of his real and personal property as if he were dead.[164]