BLACK, J., concurring. 350 U.S. risdiction over a wife should be allowed to render a valid judgment denying alimony to her. Personal jurisdiction is as necessary to protect a wife's interests as it is to protect a husband's. It is an essential to this kind of determination. Not long after Pennoyer v. Neff was decided, this Court upheld the validity of a legislative divorce which was granted without notice, service of process or a hearing of any kind, judicial or otherwise. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190. But legislative divorces attempting to create or destroy financial obligations incident to marriage have not been sustained by the courts. Thus the different treatment Estin v. Estin accorded to alimony and divorce is well grounded in the judicial and legislative history of our country. It is argued that this case is controlled by Thompson v. Thompson, 226 U. S. 551. That case, however, was decided before the Williams cases, the Estin and Kreiger cases, and May v. Anderson. It relied, moreover, on the case of Atherton v. Atherton, 181 U. S. 155, which in holding that an ex parte divorce was entitled to full faith and credit itself quoted extensively from authorities recognizing that such a divorce may be binding “so far as related to the dissolution of the marriage, though not as to other parts of the decree, such as an order for the payment of money by the husband." 181 U. S., at 166. The 5 See, e. g., Turner v. Turner, 44 Ala. 437, 450 (1870); Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 1 App. Div. 2d 3, 147 N. Y. S. 2d 125 (1955), stayed pending appeal, 309 N. Y. 971, 132 N. E. 2d 333 (1956); Hopson v. Hopson, 95 U. S. App. D. C. 285, 221 F. 2d 839. In that case the Court said: "If the act declaring the divorce should attempt to interfere with rights of property vested in either party, a different question would be presented." 125 U. S., at 206. 7 Crane v. Meginnis, 1 Gill & J. (Md.) 463 (1829); Wright v. Wright's Lessee, 2 Md. 429 (1852). See also 1 Bishop, Marriage & Divorce (6th ed. 1881), § 693; 2 id., § 382; 2 Schouler, Marriage, Divorce, Separation and Domestic Relations (6th ed., Blakemore, 1921), §§ 1471-1473. 568 BLACK, J., concurring. Thompson case stands alone in the United States Reports in supporting the proposition that a valid ex parte divorce in one State cuts off alimony rights in another." To the extent that the Thompson decision can be considered as in any way inconsistent with Pennoyer v. Neff and Estin v. Estin, the Thompson case should no longer be considered to be the law. For the foregoing reasons we concur with the Court in affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio. It may be noted that this question was not argued by the wife in the Thompson case. And the District of Columbia Court of Appeals stated "it was conceded at bar that, if the Virginia decree was not void, this action could not, upon any theory, be maintained." 35 App. D. C. 14, 26. REPORTER'S NOTE. The next page is purposely numbered 801. The numbers between 581 and 801 were purposely omitted, in order to make it possible to publish the per curiam decisions and orders in the current advance sheets or "preliminary prints" of the United States Reports with permanent page numbers, thus making the official citations available immediately. DECISIONS PER CURIAM AND ORDERS FROM END OF OCTOBER TERM, 1954, THROUGH APRIL 9, 1956. CASES DISMISSED IN VACATION. No. 13. ENGINE AIR SERVICE, INC. ET AL. v. HALPERT, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY. Certiorari, 348 U. S. 854, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. June 9, 1955. Dismissed on motion of petitioners pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. James G. Moore for petitioners. Reported below: 212 F. 2d 860. No. 166. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD Co. v. CousSENS, ADMINISTRATRIX. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. July 26, 1955. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. James L. Byrd was on the stipulation for petitioner. With him on the petition were Joseph H. Wright and John W. Freels. Reported below: Miss., 77 So. 2d 818. No. 10, Misc. MASUTH V. INDIANA. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Indiana. August 4, 1955. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. Richard W. Mehl for petitioner. Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General of Indiana, for respondent. Reported below: 233 Ind. 515, 120 N. E. 2d 272. No. 128. GOLDBAUM ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. August 9, 1955. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. Irvin Goldstein for petitioners. Solicitor 362618 O-56-43 801 General Sobeloff was on the stipulation for the United States. With him on a brief in opposition to the petition were Assistant Attorney General Holland, Ellis N. Slack, John H. Mitchell, Joseph M. Howard and Dickinson Thatcher. Reported below: 222 F. 2d 360. No. 107, Misc. HODGE V. CALIFORNIA. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. August 29, 1955. Dismissed on motion of petitioner under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. No. 269. LAMBERT'S POINT DOCKS, INC. v. KENDALL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF DEFENSE MOBILIZATION. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Emergency Court of Appeals. August 30, 1955. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. W. R. Ashburn for petitioner. Solicitor General Sobeloff for respondent. Reported below: 224 F. 2d 284. OCTOBER 3, 1955. Case Dismissed Under Rule 60. No. 15. DERECKTOR v. UNITED STATES. Certiorari, 348 U. S. 926, to the Court of Claims. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. Seymour W. Miller was on the stipulation for petitioner. With him on a brief was Israel G. Seeger. Solicitor General Sobeloff was on the stipulation for the United States. Reported below: 129 Ct. Cl. 103, 128 F. Supp. 136. OCTOBER 10, 1955. Decisions Per Curiam. No. 43. WADE ET UX. V. MICHIGAN. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Michigan. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want |