Carithers v. Carithers, 17460.

• Decision Date: 28 March 1946
• Docket Number: No. 17460.,17460.
• Parties: CARITHERS v. CARITHERS.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

116 Ind.App. 607

65 N.E.2d 640

CARITHERS

v.CARITHERS.

No. 17460.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

March 28, 1946.

Appeal from Gibson Circuit Court; A. Dale Eby, Judge.

Action for divorce by Olive M. Carithers against Ralph M. Carithers. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Hovey C. Kirk, of Princeton, for appellant.

Menzies Lindsey, Henry C. Lynn, and Roy H. Lynn, all of Evansville, for appellee.

FLANAGAN, Chief Judge.

On November 5, 1943, appellant brought this action against appellee for divorce. Summons was then issued but not served and an alias summons had to be issued. Service was not obtained until April 13, 1944. In the meantime, on January 21, 1944, appellee was granted an absolute divorce from appellant by the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Ormsby.

When service was finally obtained on the appellee he filed an answer of former adjudication. Trial resulted in judgment against appellant from which she has perfected this appeal.

Appellant makes three contentions here: First, that the decision of the court is contrary to law because she had commenced her action before the Nevada decree was rendered; second, that the court erred in admitting in evidence the transcript of the Nevada decree because it was not shown that the Nevada court which rendered it was a court of general jurisdiction; and third, that the trial court in this action had no jurisdiction either of the subject matter or of the parties.

Appellant presents no authorities in support of her first proposition and it does not therefore command consideration by us. Rule 2-17(f), Rules of Supreme Court.

As to the second proposition, it appears from the transcript that the Nevada Court had a judge, clerk and seal. That is sufficient to raise a presumption that it had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and of the parties thereto, and that the proceedings were regular and according to the laws of Nevada, at least until want of jurisdiction is shown. Bailey v. Martin, 1888, 119 Ind. 103, 21 N.E. 346;American Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mason, 1902, 159 Ind. 15, 64 N.E. 525;Applegate v. Applegate, 1938, 104 Ind.App. 599, 11 N.E.2d 515. The transcript was properly admitted into evidence.

Appellant's third proposition concerns the jurisdiction of the trial court in this action. This question appellant seeks to present for the first time on appeal. This she cannot do as to the jurisdiction of...