St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-07-20

Wife DomiciIed in This State May
Have Aiimony From Property
in This state, Notwithstanding
the Divorce Procured by Her
Husband in Another State
Grist of Decisions.
Six decisions were handed down by
the supreme court yesterday, all written
by Justice Canty.
In the case of Maria E. Thurston, APP
pellant. VS.. Charles E. Thurston ct al,
respondents, the supreme court re-
verses the Judgment of the lower court,
and holds that the defense made was
not com pleted, and that the appellant
may still proceed for the recovery of
alimony. The svlla bus is as follows:
NJ aria E. Thurston, appellant, VS.. Charles E.
Thurston ct al, respondents. Judgment
reversed. CAVITY, }.
Where husband domiciled with his
wife in this state, deserts her and &C
quires residence in another state, by
the laws of which he must reside within
such state one year before he is permit
ted 10 commence an action for divorce;
but after residing there two or three
months he commences such an action by
constructive seryi &c on the wife. and in
his sworn complaint alleged he had re-
sided there one year before the filing of
the complaint, which the court finds OH
the hearing TO be true and thereupOn
Judgment is entered diyorcing the
parties.
l. Held he being an actual resident
of that state when the action was COM
menced the judgment is valid and
stands on the same footing as any other
judgment procured by false testimony.
2. Held such Judgment determined
nothing but that the parties were di-
vorced, and being in rem is neither res
adjudicata or an estoppel as to the ques-
ton of alimOny, and the wife remaining
doniciled in this state may commence
an action for alimOnV TO be awarded out
of his property IN this state, and the fact
that the marriage relation is dissolved
will not defeat such action.
3. Held, further, she III ay make any
person having possession of the said
husbands property or holding the title
to the same in trust for him. party to
such action for the purpose of applying
the same in payment of the almony
awarded her, and this will be sufficient
seizure of the property to enable her TO
proceed by constructive service against
her said husband.
4. Held, further, If such person goes
to trial without objecting to failure to
serve her said husband with summons
in the action, he valves such def ect of
parties defendant.
3. Where such wife brought an ac-
ton for divorce and alimony, and the
defendants pleaded and proved such
Judgment Of divorce in sucn other state
Held, this Is not complete defense;
In,,t cI,n ofi f>-
cry of alimony.
The syllabi in these cases are as fol-
lows:
William Richie. respondent, VS.. John H.
Eye, sheriff, ct al, appellants. Judgment
affirmed. CAVITY j.
1. Where subsequent creditor in TAX
Ing the proper steps to redeem from
an execution sale, tenders to the sheriff
the amount or currency necessary to
| make the redemption, part of which is
national bank notes and silver certifi-
Gates, and the sheriff refuses to accept
the tender, without objection to the
character of the currency offered. Held.
that as to himself and the holder of the
certificate, he thereby valves the OBJ
| lection that the currency offered is not
legal tender.
2. Where such redemption is made
under the sheritf's certificate of execu-
ton sale on subsequent Judgment, the
time 10 redeem from which has not yet
expired. Held, it Is sufficient to pro-
duce to the sheriff on such redemption
the certificate properly executed and
recorded, without producing certified
copies of the judgment docket thereof,
and execution on which the sale is made,
when all of the same are properly re-
cited in such certificate.
8. Park VS.. Hush, 90 MINI. 434, and
other cases followed to the effect that
the purchaser of an execution sale attach
thereto subsequent lien held by him. SO
as to compel the holder of lien subse-
quent to this to pay them in redeeming
| from the execution sale unless such
/ purchaser puts himself in the line of
| redemptioners, by filing notice Of inten-
! ton to redeem from his own tote under
| his subsequent liens, and files at the
proper time affidavit Of amount due on
| his subsequent lien. but, held. In such
case 1t Is not necessary for such pur-
chaser to pay to himself the amount
necessary to redeem from himself, or
issue to himself any certificate of re-
| demption, and he need not redeem from
himself through the sheriff.
4. Wh66 & SUBSEQUENT creditor,
from an execution sale Oh 4 prior iudg :
ment, tenders to the sheriff the amount
! necessary to redeem, which Is refused,
| Held, to even maintain an action to re-
deem without paying the same into
| court, if he keep the tender good and is
ready aud willing to pay the same into