Laing v. Rigney

Syllabus

<p>In 1883 R. had his legal residence in New Jersey, but actually lived in New York. His wife resided in New Jersey, and filed a bill in the Court of Chancery of that State against'him for divorce on the ground of adultery. The defendant appeared and answered, denying the allegations in the bill. In 1886 the plaintiff filed a supplemental bill charging other acts of adultery subsequent to the filing of the bill. The court made an order, reciting the appearance and answer of the defendant to the original bill, directing him to appear on a day named and plead to the supplemental bill, and ordering a copy of this order, with a certified copy of the supplemental bill, to be served on him personally, which was done in the city of New York. The defendant did not so appear and answer, and the further proceedings in the case resulted in a decree finding the defendant guilty of the acts of adultery charged “ in the said bill of complaint and the supplemental bill thereto,” granting the divorce prayed for, and awarding the plaintiff alimony. The plaintiff commenced an action in a court of the State of New York to recover alimony on this decree, whereupon the defendant, by the solicitor who had appeared for him and filed his answer to. the original bill, applied for and obtained from the chancellor in New Jersey an amendment to the decree so as to make it read that the defendant had been guilty of the crime of adultery charged against him in said supplemental bill. The complaint in the New York case set forth the proceedings and decree in the New Jersey case, and alleged that the defendant had accepted the proceedings as valid, and had, after the decree of divorce, married another wife. The defendant answered, denying that _ the Court of Chancery in New Jersey had any jurisdiction to enter the decree on the supplemental bill, and admitting his second marriage. On the trial of the New York case, the evidence of an attorney and counsellor of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, as a