Kunze v. Kunze

• Citation: 94 Wis. 54,68 N.W. 391
• Parties: KUNZE v. KUNZE.
• Decision Date: 22 September 1896
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

94 Wis. 54

68 N.W. 391

KUNZE

v.KUNZE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Sept. 22, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Fond du Lac county; N. S. Gilson, Judge.

Action by Nellie Kunze against J. J. Kunze. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The complaint in this action is as follows: “That, at the times hereinafter mentioned, the circuit court in and for the county of Cook, in the state of Illinois, was a court of general jurisdiction over matters in equity and law, duly created and organized by the laws of that state. That on the 5th day of November, 1890, the said plaintiff commenced an action for divorce in said court against the said defendant. That the said defendant was duly served with process therein, and on the 18th day of November, 1890, appeared in said action, and submitted himself personally to the jurisdiction of the court. That thereafter such proceedings were had therein in said court that on the 8th day of January, 1891, a decree was duly made, entered, enrolled, and docketed in said court dissolving the bands of matrimony between this plaintiff and the said defendant; and thereafter, on the 3d day of February, 1894, by the consideration and judgment of said court, the said decree was duly amended by adding thereto and making a part thereof a provision and clause that said defendant pay to this plaintiff alimony to the amount of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), with fifty dollars ($50) in addition thereto as solicitors' fees; and that such money should be so paid within three days thereafter, and should stand, when paid, as a satisfaction in full for all claim for alimony and solicitors' fees on the part of this complainant. And the said plaintiff avers that no part of such sums of money have been paid. Complaining further, the said plaintiff avers: That under and by virtue of the provisions of the Revised Statutes of the State of Illinois of 1874 (chapter 22, entitled ‘Chancery,’ and chapter 40, entitled ‘Divorce’), such decree, as amended, so entered as aforesaid, has the force and effect of a judgment at law for the payment of money. That such is the construction thereof, and the force and effect to be given to the same has been adjudicated and determined by the supreme court of said state, and such is the law of said state. That, by reason thereof, this plaintiff is advised and believes that, under and by virtue of the constitution of the United States (section 1, art. 4), she hath a good right to maintain her cause of action aforesaid in the courts of the state of Wisconsin, to have and recover of the said defendant the said sums of money so awarded to her as aforesaid; and that the said courts will give the same force and effect to said decree so above stated as is given thereto in the state of Illinois. Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judgment for the said sum of fifteen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,550), so awarded, decreed, and adjudged to her as aforesaid, with interest thereon from and after the 3d day of February, 1894, together with the costs of this action.” To this complaint the defendant demurred generally, and on the ground of want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the subject of the action. From an order sustaining the demurrer...