Soon after their marriage they returned to North Carolina where they lived together as man and wife until a lawsuit was filed against them. Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were prosecuted under the North Carolina law for bigamous cohabitation. They pleaded not guilty by offering copies of the Nevada divorce decree and argued that the divorce papers and their Nevada marriage were legal in both Nevada and North Carolina. The state of North Carolina argued that since neither of the defendants in the Nevada divorce were in Nevada nor entered an appeal there, North Carolina would not acknowledge the divorce in Nevada under the rule of Pridgen v. Pridgen. Furthermore, the state suggested that Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix did not go to Nevada to set up a bona fide residence but rather to take advantage of the laws of Nevada, where it is easier to get divorced than in North Carolina (as it only took 6 weeks to obtain a divorce in Nevada), to obtain a divorce through fraud upon that court. Opinion of the Court The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in affirming the judgment, declared that North Carolina was not required to recognize the Nevada decrees under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution (Art. IV, 1) by reason of Haddock v. Haddock. The inkling from the majority opinion that the Nevada divorces were untrustworthy suggests that the second theory on which the state tried the case may have been an alternative ground for the decision below. It was adequate to sustain the judgment under the rule of Bell v. Bell—a case in which the Court held that a decree of divorce was not entitled to full faith and credit when it had been granted on constructive service by the courts of Nevada, a state in which neither spouse was domiciled. But there are two reasons why the jury did not reach that issue in this case. In the first place, North Carolina does not seek to sustain the judgment below on that ground. Moreover it admits that there probably is enough evidence in the record to require that petitioners be considered 'to have been actually domiciled in Nevada.' In the second place, the verdict against petitioners was a general one. “It was there held that a divorce granted by Nevada, on a finding that one spouse was domiciled in Nevada, must be respected in