
    Doerr v. Forsythe, Adm’x.
    Divorce— When does not affect dower rights.
    
    A divorce obtained by a husband from his wife in another state,, without service other than by publication, and she being at the time a citizen of and residing in this state, does not in any way affect her property rights in this state.
    (Decided December 22, 1893.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.
    The suit below was an action brought by Raura Ann Wood, then living, to recover dower in certain lands, owned by the defendant, and particularly described in the petition. The defendant answered denying the plaintiffs right on grounds, in substance as follows: That the plaintiff was not the widow of Isaac M. Wood at the time of his death, he having been divorced from her by the decree of an Indiana court; and,'also, that she and Isaac M. Wopd had, before that time, separated upon a written agreement by which, among other things, she had bound herself not to claim dower in his lands. Issues of fact were made upon these averments by a reply. The court upon the trial found the facts and its conclusions of law thereon separately as follows:
    “That the plaintiff Raura Ann Wood and Isaac M. Wood were intermarried on December 9, A. D. 1851, in the city of Cincinnati.
    “2. That at the time of said marriage the said Isaac M. Wood was in possession of the real estate described in the petition and was owner thereof in fee simple.
    “ 8. That afterwards, on May 31,1854, by reason of disagreements theretofore, a certain article of agreement oí separation was made in writing by and between them and one Robert M. Boal, a minister of the Presbyterian church in Cincinnati, who was nominated as trustee to receive and hold for said Raura Ann Wood certain real estate in the county of Hamilton, Ohio, to wit: Rots Nos. 17 and 18 in A. Rongshore’s addition in the town of Cheviot in Green township, also lots Nos. 15 and 16 in Isaac A. Rockenfeld’s subdivision of an addition to said town of Cheviot, also two lots Nos. 38 and 39 in Harry Morse’s subdivision in Millcreek township .of said county, and the said Robert Boal, as trustee was to receive from Isaac M. Wood, husband of said Raura Ann Wood, $500.00 in cash, and the note of Isaac M. Wood for $500.00 more, payable to the order of said Boal, trustee, in one year after said date of May 31, 1854. .
    “ And the court further finds that in and by said agreement of separation, it was provided further, to-wit:
    “‘That she, the said Raura Ann Wood shall and will sign all deeds of conveyance for the sale of her interest in the estate of her said husband, which he now owns and may hereafter acquire; she, the said Raura Ann Wood hereby agreeing to waive and release all right of dower and all interest whatever in all real or personal property now owned, or which may hereafter be owned and held by the said Isaac M. Wood,’ a true copy of which agreement is attached to the answer of the defendant, as “Exhibit A,” and is made a part of this finding.
    
      
      “4. The court further finds that there is no evidence tending to show that the provisions so made for the wife were fair, reasonable and just to her. That in fact she received little or nothing from the real estate, the cash and note mentioned. That the real estate described in the agreement was sold for taxes, that she got twenty dollars. ($20) of the cash and note referred to in said agreement.
    “ 5. The court further finds that Isaac M. Wood in the-year 1858 removed from the city of Cincinnati to the county of Franklin in the state of Indiana, and that the said Eaura Ann Wood removed to Dayton, Ohio.
    “That by the consideration of the circuit court of' Montgomery county, in the state of Indiana, a court, authorized by the laws of Indiana to grant divorces, in an action wherein Isaac M. Wood was plaintiff and Eaura Ann Wood was named as defendant, such proceedings were had that a publication of the pendency of said action was had in the form and for the time described by the statutes of the state of Indiana, and thereupon the said' circuit court, at its May term, A. D., 1859, made its certain order and judgment of divorce in words as follows, to-wit : It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that said Isaac M. Wood be and he is hereby divorced from Eaura Ann Wood.’
    “ 6. The court further finds that the records of the proceedings of said Circuit Court of Montgomery county, Indiana, do not disclose the grounds of divorce, except as heréin before shown.
    “7. This court further finds that Eaura Ann Wood knew nothing of the said proceedings of divorce until after the death of Isaac M. Wood, but that by the laws of the state of Indiana, then in force, said decree of divorce released both the husband and wife absolutely from the marriage contract, and dissolved the marriage relation.
    “8. The court further finds that after said judgment of divorce in Montgomery county, Indiana, the said Isaac M. Wood intermarried with Elizabeth McNeff, and that after1 said second marriage, the said Isaac M. Wood and Elizabeth C. Wood, under date of July 4, 1867, executed and delivered a deed in fee simple, the said Elizabeth C. releasing all her right and dower therein, by which the real ■estate in the petition was conveyed to John Meyers, in consideration of $9,000, then paid by Meyers, and subsequently under date of August 19, 1875, Meyers conveyed the said real estate to Anton Buening, and subsequeutly under date of August 25, 1875, Buening, in consideration of $13,300 conveyed the said real estate to Charles Doerr, the defendant herein.
    “9. That the original plaintiff, Laura Ann Wood, departed this life on November 23, 1886, and that on December 10, 1886, Josephine L. Eorsythe was duly appointed and ■qualified sole administratrix of her estate.
    “conclusions op law.
    “ And as separate conclusions of law the court finds:
    “1. That notwithstanding said agreement in writing of ■date May 31, 1854, and the decree of divorce rendered by the circuit court of Montgomery county, Indiana, the said Laura Ann Wood, at the time of the commencement •of this action and up to the day of her decease was entitled to dower in said premises.
    “2. That Josephine L. Forsythe, as administratrix of the said Laura Ann Wood, deceased, is entitled to recover of the defendant the value of the dower of the said Laura Ann Wood, from the date of the filing of this petition lerein to the date of the decease of said Laura Ann, to-wit, from February 29, A. D. 1884, to November 23, 1886, as by the statute in such cases made and provided.
    “To all of which findings of fact, and conclusions of law, the defendant excepted, and moved the court to set them aside, and for a new trial, upon grounds stated in the motion.”
    In substance, the grounds were, that the findings are not supported by the evidence, and that the court erred in its conclusions of law. The motion was overruled and judgment rendered according to the prayer of her petition, to all which the defendant excepted. This petition in error is prosecuted to reverse the judgment, on the ground that it is contrary to law.
    
      Kramer & Kramer and Lowery Jackson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Wm. Disney, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

The court below did not err in its conclusions of law from the facts as found. The decree of divorce granted the husband in the state of Indiana, acted only on the marital relation between the parties, and did not affect, nor purport to affect, the property rights of the wife in the state of Ohio. For aught that appears, the divorce may have been granted on some ground not recognized as a ground of divorce by the laws of this state; so that it cannot be said that it was granted for any aggression of hers, within the meaning of section 5700, Revised Statutes.

But if it were otherwise, as she had no opportunity to defend, all that can be claimed for that decree, is that it dissolved the marriage relation between the parties, and restored the husband to the status of an unmarried man. This the court could do; but, as it had no jurisdiction of the person of the wife, it was not competent to the Indiana court to affect such rights as she had acquired in the property of the husband under the laws of this state. Mansfield v. McIntyre, 10 Ohio, 27; McGill v. Deming, 44 Ohio St., 645.

Judgment affirmed.  