Case Name: Sophia Karcher, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph F. Karcher, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-02-19
Citations: 204 Ill. App. 210
Docket Number: Gen. No. 22,643
Parties: Sophia Karcher, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph F. Karcher, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
Sophia Karcher, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph F. Karcher, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 22,643.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Divorce, § 22 —when court has jurisdiction to adjudicate right of wife to alimony. No jurisdiction to award alimony in a decree for divorce exists on service of summons against the husband by publication, but where the decree for divorce in such suit reserved the question of alimony for the future consideration of the court, and the court thereafter by service of process or entry of appearance secured jurisdiction of the husband in personam, held that the court might proceed to adjudicate the right of the wife to alimony and in the usual way to enforce its payment at a term subsequent to that at which the decree of divorce was entered.
Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell and Hon. John M. O’Connor, Judges, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
Affirmed.
Opinion filed February 19, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Suit by Sophia Karcher, complainant, against Joseph F. Karcher, defendant, for divorce and alimony and solicitor’s fees. From a decree for alimony rendered at a term of the court subsequent to the term at which a decree of divorce was rendered, defendant brings error.
Bennison F. Bartel, for plaintiff in error.
William C. Hartray and C. Helmer Johnson, for defendant in error; Arthur H. Chetlain, of counsel.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Holdom
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Divorce, § 64 —when defendant estopped from questioning jurisdictional validity of alimony decree. Where a defendant in a suit for divorce in which a decree for divorce was entered on service by publication was at a subsequent term served with process, on a petition for alimony, and after a decree awarding alimony entered his appearance and secured a reduction thereof, held that he would be estopped from disputing the jurisdictional validity of such alimony decree.