Stephens v. Stephens

Citations

• 62 Tex. 337
• 1884 Tex. LEXIS 244

Syllabus

<p>1. Divorce.— In suits for divorce prosecuted against a defendant beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and who is in another state, the mode of procedure prescribed by statute for obtaining jurisdiction must be pursued in order to invest the court with power to render a judgment in personam.</p> <p>3. Same — Service — Jurisdiction.— In suchasuit,i£ there be no actual service made on the defendant within the state, or acceptance of service, and no appearance of defendant, then, in the absence of compliance with the statute which permits service to be otherwise made, a court can acquire no jurisdiction to decree a divorce. Citing Edriugton v. Allsbrooks, 31 Tex., 189; 4tki»s v. Atkins, 9 Neb., 194, and other cases.</p> <p>8. Divorce — Jurisdiction. — No legal service was made on a defendant in a divorce suit, but apparently a fraud upon the jurisdiction of the court was perpetrated, and a decree was entered divorcing the parties. A month after-wards the defendant filed her petition to vacate the judgment and to restrain the former plaintiff from again marrying. He married again before process was served on him. Held, the court had power to vacate its former judgment which decreed the divorce, no service of process having been made on defendant in the first suit. Citing Edson v. Edson, 108 Mass., 590; Willman v. Willman, 57 Ind., 501; Colvin v. Colvin, 3 Paige Oh,, 885, and other cases.</p>