Charles Lynde v. Mary Lynde Mary Lynde v. Charles Lynde

Citation181 U.S. 183,45 L.Ed. 810,21 S.Ct. 555
Decision Date05 November 1900
Docket NumberNos. 305 and 369,s. 305 and 369
PartiesCHARLES W. LYNDE, Plff. in Err. , v. MARY W. LYNDE. MARY W. LYNDE, Plff. in Err. , v. CHARLES W. LYNDE
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

This was an action brought May 26, 1898, in the supreme court for the county and state of New York, on a decree of the court of chancery of New Jersey, of December 28, 1897, by which it was ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to recover of the defendant the sum of $7,840 for alimony at the rate of $80 per week from February 11, 1896, to the date of the decree, and the further sum of $80 per week permanent alimony from the date of the decree, the said weekly payments to be valid liens on the defendant's real estate; that the defendant give bond to the plaintiff in the sum of $100,000 to secure the payment of the sums of money directed to be paid; and to pay costs, taxed at $136.07, and a counsel fee of $1,000; and that on his default to pay any of the 'foregoing sums of money' or to give bond, application might be made for the issue of a writ of sequestration against him, or for an order appointing a receiver of his property, and enjoining his transfer thereof. The record showed the following material facts:

On November 18, 1892, the plaintiff in this action filed her bill for a divorce in the court of chancery of New Jersey, setting forth her marriage with the present defendant on March 25, 1884, in New Jersey, where she has since resided; and praying for a divorce from the bond of matrimony for desertion for two years, and for reasonable alimony. The defendant was not served with process other than by publication, and did not appear or answer the bill. On August 7, 1893, a decree of divorce was entered not mentioning alimony.

On February 10, 1896, the plaintiff, alleging that this decree was incomplete through the neglect of her counsel, filed a petition in that court, praying for an opening and amendment of the decree by allowing reasonable alimony. Upon this petition a rule to show cause was entered, and it was ordered that copies of the petition and affidavits accompanying it be served on the defendant.

In answer to the rule the defendant appeared generally, and filed an affidavit declaring that he was a resident of New York; 'that this defendant was by the decree of this court divorced from said petitioner' on August 7, 1893, 'and since that time has been married again to another woman;' 'that the decree for divorce in said cause was purposely drawn without providing for or reserving any alimony;' and 'that he is financially unable to pay alimony.'

On October 26, 1896, the court of chancery of New Jersey amended the decree of August 7, 1893, by ordering that the petitioner 'have the right to apply to this court at any time hereafter, at the foot of this decree, for reasonable alimony, and for such other relief in the premises touching alimony as may be equitable and just; and this court reserves the power to make such order or decree as may be necessary to allow and compel the payment of alimony to the petitioner by defendant, or to refuse to allow alimony.' 54 N. J. Eq. 473, 35 Atl. 641. On appeal this order was affirmed by the New Jersey court of errors and appeals. 55 N. J. Eq. 591, 39 Atl. 1114. Thereupon an order of reference, based on all prior proceedings and on notice to the solicitor for the defendant, was made by the court of chancery to a master to find the amount of alimony, if any, due to the plaintiff. Neither the defendant not his solicitor appeared at the hearing before the master; and on December 28, 1897, the court of chancery, confirming the master's report, made the decree now sued on.

That court on its being made to appear that a certified copy of this decree was personally served on the defendant, and that he refused to comply with said decree, ordered that a receiver be appointed to take possession of all the defendant's real and personal property in New Jersey, to apply it to the payment of the plaintiff's claim. The receiver, however, was 'unable to obtain possession of any property or assets of said defendant in the state of New Jersey;' nor had the defendant 'complied with said decree in any respect.'

The supreme court of New York decreed that the plaintiff was 'entitled to a judgment against the defendant, enforcing against said defendant the decree of the court of chancery of New Jersey, dated December 28, 1897,' and the order appointing a receiver, and enjoining the defendant from transferring his property; also that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment that the defendant pay her $8,976.07, 'being alimony, counsel fee, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
199 cases
  • Winkel v. Winkel, s. 8-13.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • October 31, 1940
    ...290 U.S. 202, 212, 54 S. Ct. 181, 78 L.Ed. 269, 276, 90 A.L.R. 924; Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, 16 L.Ed. 226; Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183, 21 S.Ct. 555, 45 L.Ed. 810; Bower on Res Judicata, sec. 3, pars. 150, 151, pp. 96, 97. See Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 71-73, 25 S.Ct. 172, 49 L......
  • Kephart v. Kephart
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • October 11, 1951
    ... ... 582, 62 U.S. 582, 16 L.Ed. 226, and Lynde v. Lynde, 1901, 181 U. S. 183, 21 S.Ct. 555, 45 ... ...
  • Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 14, 1909
    ...v. Clarke, 178 U. S. 186-195, 20 Sup. Ct. 873, 44 L. Ed. 1028); as to effect of decree for future payment of alimony (Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U. S. 183, 21 Sup. Ct. 555, 45 L. Ed. 810); as to whether divorce obtained by the court having jurisdiction of persons of both parties must be recognized......
  • Yarborough v. Yarborough 12 8212 13, 1933
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1933
    ... ... 686. Compare Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183, 187, 21 S.Ct. 555, 45 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Elizabeth Redpath, Between Judgment and Law: Full Faith and Credit, Public Policy, and State Records
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 62-3, 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...concerning real property in another state, the decree is not enough to transfer title to that real property); Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183, 187 (1901) (stating that to give a judgment “the force of a judgment in another State, it must be made a judgment there; and can only be [enforced] in ......
  • Lucy S. Mcgough, Introduction
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 54-3, 2005
    • Invalid date
    ...(1901) (holding the lack of a bona fide instate domicile invalidates a state's jurisdiction over a divorce proceeding); Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183, 186 (1901) (noting that a defendant who appears and was heard on the merits of alimony has waived objection to that court's jurisdiction). 23......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT