*1 shall Judgment of commission. interest together with $1,018.19, sum provided in court.

Reformed Affirmed. RUMPF.

RUMPF 14301.

No. Appeals Dallas. Texas. Civil

Court of 16, 1951. Feb.

Rehearing March Denied Dallas, Fritz, appellant.

Edward C. Rochelle, Dallas., appellee. Palmer & CRAMER, Justice. action filed in the

This is an court below by. appellant seeking money judgment upon Minnesota divorce decree based thereunder, decrees two appellee, money a fixed *2 cir- March and On situation as follows: The is background may of cumstances of the case. The court District in the Seventh sec- also, provided in this Minnesota, appellant was cases Stearns tion, out Appel- alimony appellee. decree to the wife such granted a divorce estate, earnings, of the and income of their custody two granted lant was also just reasona- may husband as deem and now (one of whom minor children ble, regard the hus- having and, ability majority) material $150 reached band, par- temporary of the alimony, and the character and situation both per month “as case, ties, the minor and other circumstances of the permanent, and as ** bymay and the same still re- its decree make The children specific any specified upon parcels lien first' in Minnesota. appellant side estate, his real upon motion of authorise or its entered decree enforcement and against property, the mo- execution his real appellant, service notice after County, Texas, personal; aggregate but the award and al- Dallas appellee lowance wife made to' the from the estate follows: “Pursuant is in full as herein, pur- and husband under this section shall and filed judgment entered any present named in case exceed in value one- of the above order suant earnings, personal estate, Hereby third of the and court, 1948, it is dated October husband, income Ordered, Decreed, that of the and one-third Adjudged and hereby (Emphasis ours.) his granted judgment is value of real estate. plaintiff be and of Two sum the defendant Revision, alimony, “518.23 after as to ($2,700.00) Hundred Dol-- Thousand Seven decree Ordered, Adjudged lars, and Further it is alimony, an “After or order Decreed, execution and all other and or other allowance for the and chil- process court be issued to of this lawful dren, them, appoint- or or either of payment said Dat- effect any ment of trustees to receive and hold Minn., Cloud, day 4th this the at ed St. property for of the the use wife or chil- October, 1948.” dren, court, time, peti- from time to in substan- supplemental decree Another parties, tion of either of the may revise wording and under tially the same alter respecting and such order or decree January entered circumstances alimony allowance, the amount of such or motion in personal service of. the (after payment thereof, respect- and the and also $2,100. Dallas), for appropriation and ing supple- principal income of and above so property divorce original am,d trust, held in any on Sections 518.- make were based order re- mental decrees any Minnesota specting these inclusive matters which it 22 to 518.24 might M.S.A., statutes, original read as follows: made in action. (Emphasis ours.) husband; perma- Property of “518.22 Security; “518.24 sequestration; con- nent tempt except cause “Upon any a divorce wife, “In all when adultery if cases or committed other al- is or or award- lowance ordered restored decreed to the wife property the estate sup- children, or require the court for the suitable suffi- her insufficient ed to security cient children of the to be such the hus- port herself and payment thereof, her band for the be committed to care according marriage as shall and, estate to the terms the order or if there is no such custody, decree; or upon his order neglect or refusal property, give the court such personal security, part his her such failure to and decree allowance, husband, not exceed- the court may estate se- and real estate, thereof, quester personal his as it deems one-third the rents in value regard profits reasonable, estate, to the and of his real appoint just having husband, thereof, and a receiver personal character cause .the ability 67i estate, reports such the. profits of and the rents and and decisions of such other estate, according to the applied State. S. Ogg Ogg, real If the hus- W. 912. In terms of such order or decree. Kumlin Minnesota case of Kumlin, suf- v. band has income from source 200 Minn. an 273 N.W. *3 Supreme pay ficient to enable such him to Court of that held: “ * * * allowance, However, or and refuses and fails the court in. its discre pay same, to him tion the court order had the right to all of the consider to such or allowance facts and justified circumstances and was children, modifying use of the or both. in respect wife or the , disobey any person party If such it why shall We can no did. see reason the court order, punished’ by possess the court does power he not. to relieve contempt.” possesses default after it occurs prior pro the order the default District Court first On the below our a satisfactory vided showing is made. $2,700, appellant rendered this approve case we exer discretion proper but within time set aside such cised the trial v. court. See Sivertsen ap- ment and rendered final Sivertsen, 207, 198 Minn. 413.” N.W. pellant nothing, and it is take take nothing judgment case, quo- that this In the Sivertsen in cited above duly tation, perfected. been Court of Minnesota held: error, Appellant points briefs two both “Divorce statutory; alleged error trial court is ‘our

based on district court has no premises in rendering in not for her for delegated not to it supplemental statute.’ full of the two re- Ostrander amount Ostrander, 547, v. decrees; first, duction on the full Minn. N.W. Constitution, 450. section of our statute credit clause of the Federal under plaintiff proceeded which 1, and, principles second, is 2 Mason’s art. * * Minn.St.1927, (Now *. public policy. Appellee Ar- comity and coun- ticle 518.23 of Minnesota supplemental statute ters that since the reduction above quoted.) judgments, decrees were not were enforcement.

not entitled to “The quoted cases cited under the section given full have force and effect to the broad the Minnesota Statutes Under powers provided thereby. So there can be quoted above the award of no doubt that the court was well within its final; subj ect not there to review and was jurisdictional in authority modifying proceed fore not itself sustain a it would very onerous burdens assumed the full faith Texas under and credit imposed by original clause of the Constitution. The material supplemental question or not the is whether section, quoted “Under the the court was sued on were authorized decrees any authorized to ‘make respecting order Statutes, and, also, might of the said matters such statutes the Min to review under original plaintiff’s made in the action.’ If words, In other in order to nesota courts. precarious financial condition had been as of Texas under the binding on courts original at the time of the hearing as it provision and credit of the Con full faith now, obviously the court would not nor stitution, decrees must such granted money could it have allowance right ap and vested an absolute create provided. therein If conditions were re Quinn Quinn, Tex.Civ.App., pellant. versed so that' at the original time of the writ, refused, e., n. r. and au S.W.2d impecunious trial defendant was and later cited; also the there see note on thorities prosperous possessed became in 28 Texas Law Review case 263. such lost, now fortune can there be any doubt justified the statutes of another Where State that defendant would have 'been pleaded proven, as seeking courts modification so as to increase sub stantially support will for construction to refer for her of this State The husband v. Sivert 159 Sivertsen . that of the children?” responsible is not after divorce. sen, 269 N.W. Minn. Bond, Tex.Civ.App, Bo nd holdings by the to no cited We have been 90 S.W. there and cases cited. How supple- authorizing the Minnesota courts ever the court has wide discretion decrees, our in- mental reduction property division.of of the. to lead us dependent has failed search the divorce case and take into con express true same is such case. The sideration the divorce statutory authority. relating division all circumstances case Under circumstances wife and the children. Art. Ver 220, 66 S.Ct. Griffin, Griffin Statutes; non’s Texas Civil Hedtk e *4 local based 635, and others L.Ed. 90 Hedtke, 21; 112 Scan Tex. 248 S.W. sup- authorizing statutes rules and/or Scanned, Tex.Civ.App., nell v. 117 and, point decrees, are not plemental 538. controlling here. therefore, not We therefore where the hold that sup say the therefore cannot We are not enforceable under the full decrees subject review. not plemental decrees are faith and credit clause of the Consti U. S. under opinion that It is our tution, our Texas courts not enforce will of Min Supreme Court statute comity the decree under rule of where of divorce source is its sole nesota holds sought the same relief could not have been are supplemental decrees jurisdiction, such under statutes and awarded .our decisions Kumlin, su v. Kumlin review. of our to one own citizens. pra. Appellant is entitled under the decisions we asserts that also Appellant appellee of our recover from courts to Minne expended for by decrees reasonable amounts her enforce the should comity. To principle of necessaries for the minor child or children on the sota court herself; it is not appellee since agree however she has we this cannot policy, Tex public rule, sought this or the such relief in case nor statutory per any for in a divorce she relief other than en- provide toas divorce; after a wife' alimony to forcement of the Minnesota decree manent they support reach after reduction for decrees. nor child have uniform courts years. Our age of 16 For the reasons stated the be- both the after divorce ly held however 'be low must affirmed. liable and the mother father children; duty the minor BOND, J.,C. dissents. father. on the being primarily however BOND, Chief Fisher, 183 McGarry Tex.Civ.App., S. Justice. v. majority. recover mother I not in And the am accord W.2d paid presents question sums father for The roll over cognizable by for their minor necessaries of law Federal Courts as expended for 231 Gully, Texas, Tex. Gully 111 well as the courts of whether the v. children. parties may Third decrees of trial court the State of A.L.R. 564. S.W. 15 payments conformably necessaries the statutes recover par if the enforced the courts minor their furnished necessaries. of Texas under the “full faith credit” failed to furnish ents have Constitution, Tex.Civ.App., S. Chumley, provision 266 the Federal Art. v. Hartman Trammell, IV, Tex. and Acts enacted Sanger Congress Bros. v. sec. W. Taylor thereto, pursuant amended, v. 28 De sec. 687 Civ.App., S.W. 1738; and, too, prin- seve, 1008. Neither U.S.C.A. Tex. 16 S.W. sup ciples recognized comity of interstate mother is liable child nor father years states, age. importing verity to the become port after Birdwell, Employers’ of a sister state. Ass’n Ins. Texas “a It well settled that under “full debt” .judg- the North Carolina of the Federal Con ment faith and credit” clause for arrears in of alimony Congress, supra, a judgment” was a stitution Acts “final judg- and that such sister .state is en ment by court was entitled to full faith and. credit Tennessee, will be in the recognition titled to the same Courts of though the laws provide of North same credit in courts Texas Carolina that such orders allowing alimony as it receive the state where ren would could be modified at dered, pleaded though opinion, even the action time. The edited Chief Justice proven Stone, laws, pertinent he not authorized our as well to the Minnesota statutes, contrary policy. Tex.Jur., says: public to our “This statute its terms 572, p. 421; Hastings Bushong, provision makes only Tex. the modification dismissed; Civ.App., allowance’, S.W. writ ‘order of not of a Bray Dallas, ment v. Union National Bank rendered for the unpaid amount of the Fauntleroy 194 S.W. allowances which have accrued under such Lum, an 210 U.S. L. Nor S.Ct. order. does it state that the order 1039; Kenney etc., Ed. allowance retroactively Lodge, modified ” * * * Loyal Moose, Order of allowances 40 S. already accrued. *5 716; Ct. 64 L.Ed. 10 A.L.R. Bar S.Ct. Concurring [323 139.] Barber, opinion, ber v. 323 U.S. says: S.Ct. Jr. Justice Jackson L.Ed. 82. There can be no doubt that “Whatever else this North docu- Carolina be, courts of a might sister state ment determine what no one denies that it ais step are the essentials judgment judicial of a of record a proceeding, val- instituted idly in its courts. If the under own decree discloses the strictest standards of due finality, process. necessary appear and the essentials On its face it is final and its by judgment, here, as will terms it awards recog money judgment a in a in all liquidated amount, nized courts of the presently Union and en collectible, and verity, provides to titled ‘that precluding execution issue therefor.’ further Ackroyd, examination. Bruce v. 95 Conn. Tennessee should have rendered substan- 835; al., tially 110 A. Fraley v. judgment Martin et that it received Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 168 S.W.2d Old courts of North Carolina. If later Oldham, Tex.Civ.App., ham Dallas, decree is made in a North Carolina which 564; Baumgardner modifies or judgment,.that Southern amends its modi- Co., Paso, Pac. Tex.Civ.App., El S.W. fication or amendment will also be entitled Cohen, 2d Tex.Civ.App., Cohen v. to faith and credit in Tennessee. Austin, Evans, 194 S.W .2d Evans v. judgment “Of a is entitled to faith . course Antonio, San 186 S.W.2d just is, and credit for what it no and more. own But its terms constitute a determina- Under the law of rendering is, North court Carolina the to what as courts of that state an enforcing divorce actions re- and not search the state, change! serve as laws of to decree see whether the .to to custody of minors alimony course, ment terms are allow- erroneous. Of if a as, ances, judgment by decree of the power Minnesota stat- its terms reserves to In Barber, conditions, utes. the case of Barber modify states su- a judgment en- pra, judgment roll of North appropriately tered it could Carolina make like brought was into a Tennessee Court to reservations or conditions. appear en- No such judgment. force the The judgment contention in this unless was be an- to raised, here, there study as that the it by North Caro- nexed to a of the law of North lina judgment Any was final application because of the Carolina. for such relief reservation of vested should be addressed to the North Carolina court to change and or annul de- court and not the Tennessee court nor to alimony. cree for purpose In case the U. S. this one. The of the full faith Supreme Court lengthen holds that under the credit is law clause the arm of the Carolina is alimony North the accrued state court and to eliminate state lines as Israel, C.C., This proceeding's. Israel 130 F. judicial a shelter from plea to review the Federal Circuit it a entertaining Court had before a is defeated judgment obtained in divorce action a support in state law rendered, delay- the State of New York wherein the as it has 'been alimony obtained this case.” a divorce and decree' of been shown ing inquiry as custody marriage. al., et 124 F.2d Mueller In Mueller v. “ alimony The decree ‘That was follows: Ap the Federal Circuit plaintiff (Abraham de Israel) judg District, for review peals, had 8th (Tillie weekly fendant B. on Mon Israel) Hennepin court of ment each day commencing week on the 30th di entered June, day of and until the or further state, separation statutes vorce and court, der or the sum of policy directed insurance was an wherein support thirty mainte dollars kept in force to be children; of defendant and the said nance husband, an allowance in addition ” ** weekly (Italics The supplied.) paid to the wife tO’ decreed was subsequently, reduced was child that of her minor for her Ap Circuit Court man and long as the in installments “so District, peals, Pennsylvania F. holds 130 apart and or wife live 237, 238, Syl. 2: “Where obtained (Italics supplied.) court.” ders of court, in a state so Ar refuge in the State of took husband claim much as had been reduced subsequently obtained kansas entitled to' be full judg annulling the Minnesota in that state an action to enforce the attempted toto, to cancel out ment in *6 also, See, same in federal the courts.” wife. policy to the awarded the insurance Sistare, Sistare U.S. 30 S.Ct. bill of inter- company filed The insurance 905; Lynde Lynde, 54 L.Ed. Court, District be pleader in the Federal 555, 45 21 S.Ct. L.Ed. Barber v. citizenship diversity of of such cause of the Barber, 21 How. L.Ed. 226. wife, to the issues and determine husband Stott, Tex.Civ.App., et al. v. as to<the in Smith the husband between Amarillo, plaintiffs the 72 S.W.2d policy. The contention was there surance sought raised, judgment in a Texas court for that the Minnesota $775 as upon binding judgment based of District Court its effect was not final as to all" Osage of of fact Oklahoma the de- Court because the on the Arkansas Stott, granted, judgment fendant wherein divorce was was that the Minnesota wife, District held two children awarded to the ali- The Federal Court change. clause, mony paid credit decreed to be to the wife the the full faith and that under per judgment Minnesota was bind divorced husband in the sum of supra, the $50 Arkansas, and, maintenance, sup- courts of month' for the state education on Appeals port age Court of af of the children until reach the appeal, Circuit the Court, years. of the failed to action District of defendant firmed the per the month judg effect that Minnesota the fourteen holding in $50 months, Subsequently aggregating all in $700. in the wife beneficial vested ment policy; saying, per application the husband made to the the insurance Okla- terest in judgment “It courts homa 'Court to the with is obvious the tinent here: procured by the decrees respect payment, to the monthly of Arkansas which $50 Mueller, by virtue of which he refused, Ivan W. was the court entered judg- have divested his former wife of claims to unpaid ment the wife’s favor for suit, policy gave $700, no all interest in the amount additional $75 judgment to the attorney or effect Dis credit fees. The defendant ref- Hennepin County, Hemp- uge and instituted suit in Minnesota. in Texas Court trict below, County determining ownership hill to avoid the The court Oklahoma invalidity judgment ment, gave contending (1) because policy, credit and required to give to do.” lack of service on him the was the court effect as jurisdiction; (2) of that neither tion of a court another state which state judgment alimony nor a monthly judgment the rendered; first was record the but lump sum of the second such judgment may:be contradicted unpaid “for alimony were judgments, ju facts necessary to' the court give jurisdiction dis- Thus, reason that in if it risdiction. be shown that Osage power jurisdictional exist, trict county court had facts did record not correct, amend, from time time to modi- of nullity, although will be a fy, orders, may and even annul such and there- recite that exist. such facts did Cobb, fore 551,552; would an Norwood v. 24 Tex. Vick on, court ers action Texas.” Texas trial v. Fault 224 S.W. Brazelton, Hemphill County Cooper Cir., overruled defendant’s F. T.J., 575, p. contentions and on the Amarillo most, 424. At Appeals, opinion by of Civil Chief recitals in foreign judgment Court are mere Hall, holds, 951, Syl. ly evidentiary, impeached Justice proof; 1: question jurisdiction in divorce action “Oklahoma is al ways monthly payments open awarding inquiry wife certain when coming under husband, jurisdiction be sued control of having a court subject-matter person thing Texas under effect in full litigation. (Const.U.S. clause of Federal Constitution involved If the 1).” jurisdiction person art. had Florida over the defendant,' Fraley Mary K. and the . of Florida In the State the divorce stat children, minor the judgment import would provisions (as utes make do the statutes absolute, preclude verity ex Oklahoma) that the court in amination; if but the Florida 'Court had no jurisdiction a divorce decreeing retains jurisdiction, there rendered custody, support award and mainte credit; would not be entitled to faith and parent nance the minor children to either so, question of service or notice con determine, and in the de ferring Florida Court cree allow in furtherance their one fact for the determination of *7 support; reserving at all times the to the trial court these proceedings.” (Ital in grant changes decree the and to So, supplied.) ics in the instant the case exigencies meet that thereafter arise. jurisdiction Minnesota Court had in the all Martin, Fraley supra, In the case of this v. appeal; in decrees related this judg its the Court reviewed of court of given verity. ments should be awarding custody Florida of two minor Then, again, Oldham, the mother in Oldham v. supra, children to until order. opinion court; Looney, edited our subsequently that Mr. Justice of Mr. order, Young dissent our changing modifying on other the award Justice grounds, that held custody to we the full ing the children’s the father “un provisions of credit the further order of United States til the this Court.” [168 Congress Acts of Constitution in rela On from a.judgment S.W.2d 538.] thereto; the Texas impelled Court was court which failed give of the trial to “full recognize judgments to the of to credit” the of Florida. We faith and the holding the cited our Court under the Federal Court in Florida Constitu Salkey, 139, Goldsmith v. 131 Tex. Congress Acts of 112 S. in relation there tion and 165, 1293, opinion by W.2d 116 A.L.R. to, Court reversed and remanded the opinion Martin; cause, Judge. opinion also saying: the Judge “The Federal 4, (Art. 1), requires Taylor, Folley Constitution that full in Evans v. § 77-99, credit given by be faith and state to 128 wherein Judge Folley each S.W.2d acts, rule public judicial pro records announced the to the the same effect as every state, Martin, supra, reading: ceedings Judge the Act “We think (28 687) passed U.S.C.A. Congress it is settled our well prevent thereof does not pursuance inquiry judgments two Kansas court are res jurisdic one state questions into courts adjudicata all concerning the 676 recog sister to same were a state entitled the child which custody of

right credit in nition and will be of the time at the been raised have could it in the state upon' this State as would receive binding adjudications, respective are p. 420, Sec. where rendered. protected the decrees Tex.Jur. judgment is be validity 571'. The clause the full faith by the laws of the state where determined art. U.S.C.A.Const. Federal Constitution. rendered, pleaded proved Tex. if Salkey, 131 4, al. v. et 1. Goldsmith Id., it is one not author it is immaterial 165, A.L.R. 139, 112 S.W.2d A.L.R; public contrary our 778, ized our laws or Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d policy, the ‘full faith and credit’ clause finality that the settled It is also well Id., p. requires recognized. be long as the obtains so judgments of such Bushong, Tex.Civ. rule, Hastings Sec. 572. v. same. Such remain circumstances dismissed; Bray App., 252 writ pro S.W. subsequent however, bar does not Dallas, Tex.Civ. Nat. Bank Union v. former change the modify or ceeding Lum, App., Fauntleroy v. S.W. so changed have provided conditions award 52 L.Ed. 210 U.S. S.Ct. would war materially since Moose, Kenney Loyal 252 U. Order of question in upon the adjudication rant an A.L.R. S.Ct. 64 L.Ed. S. changed In or light conditions'. S.W.2d 716.” change [177 319.] modification der to warrant a seems to that the the true test Evans, the order the San Antonio Evans char proof show the ‘situation"and must Appeals am of Civil had for review Court respective parties so acter allowing Court a di- order of an Ohio (best) inter-’ changed to render it alimony pendente designed action lite vorce that the former order infant’ est of the protect rights wife and main- Elliott, 96 Wilson v. or modified. couple set aside children of tenance of two minor 368], 472, 73 S.W. S.W. Tex. [75 involved the suit. The husband Am.St.Rep. S.W.2d Texas, 928”. [135 refuge and there 568.] in Bexar Cohen, instituted new suit divorce under too, case of Cohen So, “We this State. The court said: Appeals laws Civil Austin Court of supra, the between principle comity think that divorce had for review prevail should in this situation.” states property rights of involving action California, which decree was [186 279.] sub held, change. Court 194 S.W. ject to Turning now to decision of the Su judg Syl. 6: a final “Where 2d preme Holton *8 by rendered in another state has been 543, ment Holton, 346, 542, 153 190 N.W. Minn. competent jurisdiction, between a of court reviewing 1415: After stat 41 A.L.R. the and on the same 514, Laws, Oregon, Oregon of sec. utes should, matter, Texas the courts of reading any time a decree is “At after comity, plea of absent the rules thereof, upon judge court the given, the of equitable grounds warrant or other fraud shall party, motion of either course, contrary give' full faith aside, alter or so much of the set * * * judgment.” (Italics sup to such may provide for the decree -as n plied.) suit”; party to of either the maintenance and, construing that State in the Co., the law of Baumgardner Southern Pac. In cases, adjudicated both Federal and light of opinion Court Com supra, the cited, had this there the Court judgment mission, the roll of State in relation to that, irrespective say: of Arizona, “We also hold public contrary of a court 31, Texas, judgment says: of December the Court “It policy the so-called (cid:127) the 1919, plaintiff entitled to recover that under the ‘full faith well settled Constitution, of the installments which amount aggregate the Federal clause credit’ complaint plead 1, In her she IV, Congress and the Act accrued. had Art. Sec. thereto, judgment the subse 687, original pursuant 28 the Sec. U. ed enacted thereon which resulted proceeding 5.C.A., judgment quent rendered

677 suit, other 1948, December like unto the suit of judgment of entry the $2,100, the sum of and caused to>is- proceeding notice 31st. This did .result and, defendant; sue and It was be served on the judgment. the of a new rendition hearing, put the Minnesota plaintiff her Court entered means merely the which a further judgment plaintiff favor of into form that execution $2,100 Thayer, and directed Thayer the ex- enforcement could issue thereon. ecution. 268, will be 145 It from the roll of App.Div. N.Y.S. 129 observed Jacob judgments the 253, Minnesota the 148 N.Y.S. that defendant Jacobson, son v. Misc. made change no effort to App.Div. 150 N.Y. secure a or modi- affirmed decrees, fication of either of Vall, Or. hence in S. De Vall v. De said L.R.A.,N.S., form and the effect decrees stand valid and P. 120 P. Wells, subsisting judgment Ann.Cas.l914A, against claims the de- Wells v. L.R.A.,N.S.; fendant. Under the credit” Mass. 95 N.E. “full provisions the Federal 561.” Constitution Acts of Congress, judgments the aforesaid So, in the case at bar it will be seen verity must be in the courts upon the hus- virtue of notice service of Texas, well as in states here), (appelled band the Minnesota Court the being Union. The defendant a resident the rendering judgment granted to Texas, this State only is the available divorce, care, custody, and control of place for enforcement of said decrees children, and, their minor consistent three conformably to our laws. state, provided the laws Such a presented situation as here the husband to the wife for the become increasingly acute, easy with the per herself sum of $150 accessibility mobility of state lines month until “further order of the court.” population. of our crossing Texas This was entered on 'March State lines should afford no haven of se- husband, having made no curity parents for defaulting legal, avoid change effort “further order” to secure equitable, responsibility and moral sup^-. rendered, thus left port their minor children. Under the full his abandoned three faith and credit clause of the Federal Con- minor children without stitution, the responsibility for enforcing and, monthly support, their the solemn state, of a sister made presumably, up took in Texas. On haven issue, final and directing that execution (resident October divorced wife compe- is vested the court having pursuant Minnesota), to aforesaid jurisdiction. tent Furthermore, comity be- ment, brought suit husband impels tween States of the recogni- Union having jurisdic- Minnesota Court tion of and, decrees of sister states in. it, tion reserved to to make the case, instant Texas Courts should extend final. The defendant had full notice of the arm Judiciary of its to the enforcement filing of the suit the basis of the Minnesota decrees. And, hearing, Court entered court in re- *9 plaintiff (appel- in favor of the to accord full faith and fusing credit to the $2,700 here) lant the sum ex- judgments of the Minnesota court should be pressly “Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed here reversed and rendered in favor nn process execution and all lawful (appellant) full amount of issue forthwith to effect the foreign judgments in absence of Then, judgment.” subsequently, proven said pleaded or defense plaintiff brought January an- cause.