The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1881-01-19
IMPORTANT DECISION,
Rendered by Judge Howe In the Suit
Brought by the Divorced Wife
of Judge Harrington.

Judge Howe, OF Room No. ., superior
Court, yesterday, submitted the following
important ruling on demurrer to complaint,
i'm the noted case of Alkaline Harrington VS..
II. w. Harrington, TO recover alimony
awarded plaintiff by a New York Court in
1853.
Harrington We. Harrington. Howe, J.-A.'swife
began suit against A. I'm New York for divorce n
mensa, or limited divorce, in which personal ser
vice WAS had upon the latter who appeared TO the
suit Pending the suit, A. left New
Indiana, began suit in latter state for divorce.
and decree for an absolute divorce was rendered
in his favor His wife did not appear 70 the In
diana suit. and had no notice other than by
publication. shortly after the decree in the In
diana divorce suit 4 3 wife procured a decree I'm
her favor I'm the New York suit, in which she was
allowed for support of herself aud children siOO
per year payable semi annually until the further
order OF the Court.
York against for divorce. yinculo, or ALSO
Lutte divorce which was granted her.
She being now resident of the State OF Michi-
gan brings suit on said Judgment against A, who
is a resident of Indiana.
Held: First. that the twenty year statute OF
Limitations is good plea t29 Ind, iSi-dis-
tinguishing Ind, 514; 3 saudi, 2i)
A plea OF New York statute raising presllmp
ton of payment of judgments after lapse of twen-
~ years. is bad ~ Ind, 2as: Ncrm., li6; An
CELL Lin, sec. 81; & Wend., 49,
As to construction OF Section 2l6 OF the Code,
see IS Ind, 4O2; i'd, i2s. See, also. T. b. Mon,
lia.
The Indiana divorce did not affect plaintiff in
her property rights al least IN the State OF New
York e. Bish. NJ and D., 9th cd, sections 1856,
l59; Kent, l2th cd, ITO, note a; u How, I. ).
ST. SIS; 10 Oh. St, 502; =. G., Am. Rep. fl5; 20
Ala. GO. distinguishedl
If suit can be maintained In Indiana 10 re
cover the installments accruing under the first
New York judgment, whatever facts would be
available there, as a ground for an application 10
the Court rendering Ii 10 reduce or suspend the
alimony granted, must be available here full
or partial defense.
4 final judgment for alimony under statutes
after the term, except for causes, and in the way
pr. 'vided with respect TO other final judgments.
tj9 ". y. 2l2: 20 kans. Coo; Is Ala 2J4) Nor are
they discharged by the subsequent death OF hus-
band. remarriage of parties or by subsequent
Judgment of divorce. CO Ind, 60; - Id, 26a.)
But judgments for alimony using the term in
its original technical meaning) are, In the absence
of 4 statute forbidding il, subject 10 subsequent
modification even with respect TO arrears. u Bish.
NJ. and d., 9th cd, 80, 43i; Hacg., Fec. 322;
~ i'd. l9S; Barb. 10; l. Hun, ioS; 9Abb pr.
Rep, 2Sg, BOG. 500
And such judgments are not ordinarily enforced
by Execution. "a Cush., BIS; Is Hun, 466)
An action at law may BE- brought on final de-
cree for an asccrtained sum. (l6 How, L. $, ~:
6 a. b., 2SS.)
But it seems that no action at law nor suit in
equity viii lie upon upon the judgment Of any
other Court of law or equity which is subject 70
revision or modification by the Court which rend-
cred IL. Is Wheat 6g7 10 How. ~
And, following principle OF these authorities,
IL seems that this action can not be maintained
upon the installments accruing subsequent 20
the rendition OF the judgment sued on. @ HAIR.
N. ~ 1sl: Chand. 80: II Gray Do: Cush. SIS;
10 Blatchf. 45G-distinguishing n How. u. s.
5Sg.l