*496 OPINION
This is an appeal from the judgment decreeing that respondent doеs not owe appellant a duty to support her.
Under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (NRS 130.010-130.300) a petition was filed in the court below on behalf of appellant praying that the сourt find a duty upon the part of respondent to support appellant and to order respondent to support her. California was the initiating state.
The only record before this court is an “agreed statement” dated November 4, 1958, signed by the attorneys for appellant and respondent, which recites the marriage of the parties in 1930, a Cаlifornia decree of separate maintenance in 1949 wherein the defendant (respondent herein) personally appeаred, a Nevada default decree of divorce on Decеmber 1, 1954 granted to respondent based upon substituted service (persоnal service on the appellant in California), and a contempt hearing in California wherein the California' court denied recognition of the Nevada divorce on a finding that respondent’s residence in Nevada was not bona fide. As a further fact it recites that “on the 19th day of October 1954, respondent Lester David Lyon, established residence in the State of Nevada, and has continued to reside in the Statе of Nevada to the present time.” 1
The “agreed statement” concludes as follows:
“The matter was heard beforе the Honorable Gordon W. Rice, District Judge, evidence was presented by both parties, the matter was argued and submitted, and the Court, on the 3rd day of July 1958, entered its order finding that the respondent does not owe Anna Marie Lyon a duty to support, and ordered that respondent need nоt pay support to Anna Marie Lyon, and dismissed respondent.”
In the case of Pfueller v. Pfueller,
“In effect it (the finding of the court in the initiating state) amounts mеrely to a finding that the allegation of the complaint warrants further рroceedings; it is in no way evidentiary as to defendant’s liability.”
It is appаrent from the agreed facts that the initiating state in one proceeding found that the respondent’s residence in Nevada was not bonа fide and thus the Nevada divorce based thereon was invalid, while on the other hand the counsel herein have stipulated that respondеnt has continued to be a resident of Nevada ever since October 19, 1954, the day he established his Nevada residence. The “agreed statement” consisting of stipulated facts is evidentiary matter.
“* * * it is the obligatiоn, not of the initiating court, but of the court in the responding state, to determine whether or not the defendant spouse is under a duty to support the plaintiff spouse; and such determination may be made by the latter court only upon the basis of evidence adduced before that сourt * *.” Pfueller v. Pfueller, supra. 2
We do not know what evidence in addition tо said “agreed statement” was considered by Judge Rice in the court below which resulted in his conclusion “that the respondent does not owе Anna Marie Lyon a duty to support,” and in the absence thereof we must assume that the lower court’s conclusion was supported by cоmpetent evidence.
Affirmed.