This is аn appeal from a judgment of the district court of Henne-pin county entered after it had dismissed the action on the pleadings on the ground hereinafter stated.
In May, 1936, plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant alleging that the parties were man and wife; thаt the defendant had wilfully deserted her; that he had been guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment; that by reason of this conduct she had been forcеd to live apart from the defendant; and that she is without any means of support for herself and the minor child of the parties. For relief she asked for separate maintenance and the custody and support of the minor child, attorney’s fees and other costs, and also a temporary allowance pending the outcome of the action.
As part of his answer defendant alleged that on October 2, 1935, he commenced an action for divorce in the state of Arkansas in which the summons and complaint were served upon this plaintiff personally in that state; that plaintiff thereafter filed an answer and cross complaint; that plaintiff appeared pеrsonally and by attorney in the chancery court, in which that action was pending, and obtained in said court an interlocutory order for hеr maintenance and attorney’s fees; that plaintiff thereafter caused depositions of certain witnesses to be taken and submittеd to the court on her behalf, and that on January 22, 1936, the court made and filed its order in the said divorce proceedings. Attached to thе *248 answer herein are copies of the complaint, the answer and cross complaint, and the final order and decree in thе Arkansas action, in which the plaintiff therein (defendant here) was granted a divorce.
In her reply the plaintiff admits the commencement of the divorce action in Arkansas and the service of the complaint on her as alleged in the answer herein. She also admits the making and filing of the decree attached to the answer, but alleges that the purported divorce therein granted to her husband is void on the ground that neither of the parties ever had a l)ona fide domicile in the state of Arkansas, and that in the action there her husband fraudulently, cоrruptly, and unlawfully stated and represented that he was a resident of that state, all of which constituted a fraud upon the courts of Arkansаs and Minnesota. She also admits in the reply that she appeared in the Arkansas action.
Before this case, came on for trial the lower court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action on the pleadings on the ground that the plaintiff was estopped to dеny the jurisdiction of the Arkansas court.
Plaintiff’s right to maintain this action for separate maintenance depends of course upon thе validity of the Arkansas divorce. Whatever may be the rule in other states, this court has held that where in an action for divorce in the cоurt of another state both parties voluntarily appear and submit to the jurisdiction of that court, they are bound by the judgment and cannot аvoid it in a collateral proceeding in this state by proof that when the action was brought and judgment rendered neither of them was a rеsident in that state and that both were residents in this state. In re Ellis’ Estate,
It is true that in the Ellis case, above cited, rights of third persons had intervened, but it was the conduct of the parties themselves and not the rights of third persons which led to the result reached, and we think that the rule stated should apply in this case. This statе, not being a party to the Arkansas proceedings, is not of course bound by the judgment there.
Plaintiff contends that although the Arkansas decrеe is held to be valid, the courts of this state still have the power to determine her alimony and support money rights. It is the rule in this state that wherе a divorce has been procured in another state and none of the rights of the parties except the right to a divorce hаs been litigated in the divorce action, the wife may thereafter maintain an action in this state for an adjudication of the alimony оr other rights of the parties.' Thurston v. Thurston,
If the conclusion we have reached seems unjust and harsh to the plaintiff, the responsibility rests upon her. This is not a cаse where one of the parties has fraudulently procured a divorce in another state on constructive service. In such a case the courts of this state will not hesitate to aid the innocent party in avoiding the effect of the divorce.
Affirmed.