The appeals in this case are confined to the amendment of the judgment in the circuit court for Dane county, Wisconsin, affecting the care and support of the minor children, and thе allowance of attorneys’ fees in this proceeding. These are the only questions before the court for considеration on this appeal.
Moerchen v. Stoll,
It was stipulated in open court in the instant proceeding that the judgment in the prior action for divorce in Marquette county awarded the custody of the minor children to the plaintiff, and adjudged that the defendant pay tо the plaintiff $25 a month for their support. That judgment for custody and support of the minor children, although the action was dismissed on the merits, was authorized under sec. 247.28, Stats. The circuit court for Marquette county properly assumed jurisdiction of the custody and suрport of these minor children. A proceeding to amend this judgmеnt and provide *138 additional support for the minor children could have been properly instituted and granted, if the facts warranted it, at any time prior to the entry of the judgment in the circuit cоurt for Dane county. The circuit court for Marquette county hаd power to enforce its judgment.
“Application to change or vacate a judgment should be made in the action in whiсh it was entered and to the court that rendered it.” Wescott v. Catencamp,190 Wis. 520 ,209 N. W. 691 .
A stipulation оf the parties could not confer jurisdiction on the circuit сourt for Dane county, where power to act is involved.
Welhouse v. Industrial Comm.
“On principle, a court of concurrent jurisdiction should not take jurisdiction of a matter which is propеrly involved in a proceeding then pending in another court which is competent to render adequate relief in the premises.” Cawker v. Dreutzer,197 Wis. 98 ,221 N. W. 401 ; 21 C. J. S. p. 745, sec. 492.
There is no contention that the circuit court for Marquеtte county is not competent to render adequate relief on the subject matter of this appeal. It is a court of concurrent jurisdiction ; it has assumed and retained jurisdiction over the welfare of these minor children from the time the divorce action was *139 started in 1936 up to the present time. This rule rests on public policy, and prevents multiplicity of actions involving the same statement of facts.
It necessarily follows that the allowance of attorneys’ fees and charging the specifiс real estate with a lien for the payment of support money must fall.
By the Court. — Order amending judgment is reversed, and amended judgment is modified аccordingly. Subsequent order allowing additional attorneys’ fees is reversed. No costs or disbursements allowed on this appeal, but respondent to pay clerk’s fees.