It appears to ns that the decree of the district court of Minnesota, dissolving thе marriage between Mrs. Shafer and her husband, must be deemed conclusive in this state, in respect to the status, or domestic and social condition, of the wife. That dеcree was rendered by a court of general jurisdiction, and for a causе and under circumstances which would authorize the courts of this state to dissolve the marriage. Mrs. Sha-fer had her actual, bona fide domicil in Minnesota, and had resided there fоr a year when she applied for a divorce. It seems that she and her husband hаd lived separate for three years. It is true, the marriage was solemnized in this state, and the acts of cruelty complained of were committed in this state; and, moreover, the plaintiff was neither personally served nor appeared in the action in Minnesota, and the court only acquired jurisdiction by publication under the statutes of that state. But, notwithstanding all this, we think effect must be given to the decreе. For, if Mrs. Shafer had been married in Minnesota, and the acts of cruelty complained оf had been committed there, still, if she had afterward removed to this state and resided here a year, the courts of this state would have had jurisdiction to decreе a dissolution of the marriage contract upon her application, although her husband had never been a resident of, or served with process in, this state. This was so decided as early as 1852, in the case of Manley v. Manley,
By the Court. — The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.