"New Jersey. - Whilst the courts of New Jersey have exercised the power to grant a divorce from a nonresident defendant, upon constructive service, those courts have from the beginning applied to similar decrees of divorce granted in other states, when sought to be enforced in New Jersey against citizens of that state, a rule like the one prevailing in New York, that is, they decline to enforce them even upon the principles of comity. Doughty vs. Doughty, 28 N. J. Eq., 581, 586; Flower vs. Flower, 42 N. J. Eq., 152; 7 Atl. Rep., 669. Recently, however, it has been decided, Felt vs. Felt, 59 N. J. Eq., 606, 45 Atl. Rep., 105, 49 Atl. Rep., 1071, that where a decree of divorce was rendered in another state, and the complainant alone was subject to the jurisdiction of the court, but it was shown that the defendant had been personally served outside of the jurisdiction with notice of the pendency of the divorce proceeding and was afforded reasonable opportunity to make defense and did not avail of the opportunity, effect would be given to such decree in New Jersey, upon principles of comity, provided that the ground upon which the decree rested was one which the public policy of New Jersey recognized as a sufficient cause for divorce. In Wallace vs. Wallace, 62 N. J. Eq., 509; 50 Atl. Rep., 788, the subject is quite fully reviewed.

"Ohio. - In Cooper vs. Cooper (1836), 7 Ohio (pt. ii), 238, without citation of authority, a divorce granted in Indiana, from a resident of Ohio, upon constructive service, was held to bar an application for divorce and alimony in Ohio. In Mansfield vs. Mclntyre (1840), 10 Ohio, 27, despite a divorce obtained in Kentucky, by a husband, upon constructive service, the divorced wife was regarded in Ohio as the widow of her former husband after his decease, and as such widow entitled to dower.

"In Cox vs. Cox, 19 Ohio St., 502, decided at the December term, 1869, the facts were these: The husband deserted the wife in Ohio, went to Indiana and there obtained a divorce, upon constructive service. The wife remained in Ohio, and three years after the granting of the Indiana divorce to the husband she sued him for divorce and for alimony, alleging abandonment and gross neglect of duty. The trial court granted a divorce and alimony. The husband appealed, but as such an appeal, under the statutes of Ohio, did not affect the decree as to the divorce, the District Court considered only the question of alimony and rendered a new decree for alimony against the defendant. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court of the state. In that court attention was called to the fact that under the statutes of Ohio and the decisions of its courts jurisdiction might be exercised over nonresidents in divorce cases, and reference was made to various authorities as tending to show that public policy required the recognition of the validity of such decrees in other states as to the dissolution of the marriage. After stating the facts, and observing that the wife was entitled under the laws of Ohio to either divorce or alimony, or both, at her election, and alluding to the Indiana decree, the court said (page 512):

"The question, therefore, is whether the ex parte decree can be made available, not merely to effect a dissolution of the marriage, but to defeat the right of the petitioner to the alimony which the statute, upon the facts as they exist in regard to the husband's desertion, intended to provide for her.

" 'We think the decree ought not to have such effect.

"In arriving at this conclusion we make no distinction between a decree rendered, under the circumstances of this case, in a foreign, and one rendered in a domestic forum.

" 'In either case, to give to a decree thus obtained the effect claimed for it, would be to allow it to work a fraud upon the pecuniary rights of the wife. Such a result, in our opinion, is rendered necessary by no principle of comity or public policy - the only grounds upon which ex parte decrees of divorce are authorized and supported.

"'It is not essential to the allowance of alimony that the marriage relation should subsist up to the time it is allowed. On appeal, alimony may be decreed by the District Court, notwithstanding the subsisting divorce pronounced by the Court of Common Pleas. It is true that the statute speaks of the allowance as being made to the wife. But the term "wife" may be regarded as used to designate the person, and not the actual existing relation; or the petitioner may still be regarded as holding the relation of wife for the purpose of enforcing her claim to alimony.'

"The following cases were cited by the court as sustaining the right of the wife to maintain an independent proceeding for alimony, even after the husband had obtained a divorce. Richardson vs. Wilson, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.), 67; Crane vs. Meginnis, 1 Gill & J. (Md.), 463; and Shotwell vs. Shotwell, Smed. & M. Ch. (Miss.), 51.

"In Doerr vs. Forsythe, (1893) 50 Ohio St., 726; 35 N. E. Rep., 1055; an Indiana divorce granted to a husband, upon constructive service, was held not to bar the right of the wife to dower in lands in Ohio owned during coverture by the husband.

"Alabama. - In Thompson vs. State (1856), 28 Ala., 12, the facts were these: Thompson deserted his family in Mississippi, went to Arkansas and there obtained a divorce upon constructive service. The wife returned to her father's home in Alabama, and after the divorce the husband also went to Alabama, where he again married. He was prosecuted for and convicted of bigamy. The conviction was set aside, however, upon the ground that the guilt or innocence of the accused depended upon the question as to whether he had a bona fide domicile in Arkansas during the pendency of the proceedings for divorce. Harding vs. Alden, 9 Me., 140, was cited as authority.

"In a subsequent case, however, Turner vs. Turner (1870), 44 Ala., 437, the supreme court of Alabama strictly limited, as against a citizen of Alabama, the effect of a divorce rendered in another state upon constructive service. The parties were married in Alabama, where the husband deserted the wife, and located in Indiana, where he obtained a divorce upon constructive service. The wife remained in Alabama, and after the granting of the divorce to the husband she sued him in Alabama for a divorce and alimony. The husband pleaded the Indiana decree in bar. The trial court, however, held that the wife was entitled to maintain her suit, and entered a decree for divorce and alimony. In affirming the decree the Supreme Court of Alabama, upon the authority of Thompson vs. State, supra, said that the decree of divorce obtained by the husband in Indiana might protect him against prosecution for bigamy should be marry again in Alabama. Referring to that decree it further said (page 450):