"'But without stopping to inquire whether it was obtained by him by fraud, and therefore is vicious on that account or not, it certainly cannot affect the rights of the complainant, except her right in the husband as husband. If it is valid, it unmarries him and sets him free from his marital vows to her. He is no longer the complainant's husband. But it does not settle her right to alimony; it does not settle her right to dower in his lands, and her statutory right to distribution of his property in this state, in the event she should survive him, nor any other interest of a pecuniary character she may have against him. * * * It is the duty of the state to protect its own citizens, within its own borders. This is the natural compensation for allegiance. This high duty extends to all the pecuniary rights of the citizens, as well as to the rights of security of person. * * * No obligation of comity is paramount to this duty. Without a constant and effective exertion of it, citizenship would become a farce. * * * The wife is as much the citizen of the state as the husband, and is entitled to the protection of its laws to the same extent, so long as she remains within its jurisdiction. It would be a scandal to justice to imperil her and sacrifice her most important and cherished rights upon a mere technicality - a technicality that often contradicts the truth. When her protection requires it, it would be cruelly unjust for the state of her actual residence and domicile to repudiate its own right of jurisdiction to give her aid. I therefore think that the better opinion is, that she has the right to file her bill here, and to all the relief that the court could give her, notwithstanding her husband might not be domiciled in this state at the commencement and during the whole pendency of her litigation with him. * * *

"'Then, if the state courts have competent jurisdiction in such a case, as undoubtedly they have, they may go on and exercise that jurisdiction in the manner and to the extent prescribed by their own laws.

" 'Under the laws of this state, by the contract and consummation of a marriage, the wife, if she has no separate estate, becomes entitled to dower in the husband's lands, and a certain distributive interest in his personal estate, if she survives him, and to temporary and permanent alimony out of his estate upon a separation by divorce in her favor. These are rights that she cannot legally be deprived of without her consent or her fault. * * * If this were not so, then these important statutory provisions in favor of the wife would be repealed or rendered null by a foreign divorce, of which she had no notice and no knowledge, during its whole progress through the forms of a foreign court. To sue in her own domicile is necessary for the protection of the wife. It, therefore, overrides the technical rule that the husband's domicile is also the domicile of the wife. * * * Here the testimony shows that the wife has no separate estate. The witnesses for the defendants say when she was married she "brought nothing with her." It also appears that during her connection with the defendant Matthew Turner, as his wife, she was a chaste, industrious, economical, faithful, useful, and obedient wife; and that the husband's property is very considerable, worth possibly not less than one hundred thousand dollars. It is also shown that his three children by a former marriage are already sufficiently provided for.

" 'Under such a state of facts the sum of thirty thousand dollars was not an unreasonable sum for permanent alimony, to be allowed to the wife, nor the sum of eight hundred dollars too large for temporary alimony. * * * '

"Indiana. - In Tolen vs. Tolen, (1831) 2 Blackf. (Ind.), 407, the facts were these: A wife, on being deserted in Kentucky, removed to and became domiciled in Indiana, and after a residence there of five years sued for a divorce from the nonresident husband. In an opinion of great length the court considered the question of its power to grant a divorce which would be valid in Indiana, and decided it had such power, but expressly reserved passing on the question whether the decree would have extraterritorial force.

"In Hood vs. State (1877), 56 Ind., 263, 271, it was declared that as an ex parte divorce in favor of one domiciled within the jurisdiction of a state, and against a nonresident, although founded upon constructive service, was valid as to the plaintiff, 'public policy demands that it should be held valid as to both parties.'

"In Hilbish vs. Hattle (1896), 145 Ind., 59, 44 N. E. Rep., 20, certain sections of the Indiana Revised Statutes, wherein it was provided that the divorce of one party to a marriage should dissolve the contract as to both, and that a divorce decreed in another state by a court having jurisdiction of the cause should have full effect in Indiana, were held to be applicable to a decree of divorce granted in another state, in favor of a husband, upon constructive service, and the same effect was given to the decree, as to the rights of the wife in the property of the husband in Indiana, as if the divorce had been rendered in Indiana.

"Missouri. - In Gould vs. Crow, 57 Mo., 200, a decree of divorce regularly obtained by a husband in Indiana, on an order of publication, without personal service, was held to operate as a divorce in favor of the husband in Missouri, so as to prevent the wife from claiming her dower in lands in Missouri owned by the husband. Harding vs. Alden, 9 Me., 140, was relied upon as authority. A statute of Missouri, barring the claim of a wife for dower after divorce granted by reason of her fault, was held to apply to all divorces, whether obtained in Missouri or in other states, and whether obtained on personal service or by order of publication. The doctrine of Gould vs. Crow was reaffirmed and applied in Anthony vs. Rice, 110 Mo., 223, 19 S. W. Rep., 423.

"Wisconsin. - In Shafer vs. Bushnell (1869), 24 Wis., 372, an ex parte divorce granted a wife in Minnesota upon constructive service of the defendant, a citizen of Minnesota, was held upon the grounds of comity to be conclusive in Wisconsin in respect to the status or domestic and social condition of the wife. The decree was held to bar an action for criminal intercourse against the person whom the complainant in the divorce suit married after the granting of the divorce.