
    Gertrude E. Tiedemann, Respondent, v. Rudolph E. Tiedemann, Appellant.
    
      Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 172 App. Div. 819, affirmed.
    (Argued January 23, 1919;
    decided February 25, 1919.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 15, 1916, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover accrued alimony under a foreign decree of divorce and for an accounting of alleged community property. The answer set up as separate defenses: 1. That the Nevada court had no jurisdiction because the defendant had gone into the state of Nevada for the special purpose of instituting habeas corpus proceedings to secure the custody of his child, and that while he was within the state of Nevada for the purpose of prosecuting that proceeding he was served with the summons and complaint in the divorce action at a time when he was immune from service. 2. That the Nevada court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff left the state of Connecticut and went to the state of Nevada for the express purpose of securing a divorce, and that she was not a bona fide resident of Nevada, not having been within that state for a period of six months. The Special Term directed an interlocutory judgment for the amount of accrued alimony and appointed a referee to take and state an account of the community property. The Appellate Division modified by directing final judgment for alimony but struck from the judgment the provision directing an accounting.
    
      Nash Rockwood, Charles T. Lark and Homer S. Cummings for appellant.
    
      Leo R. Brilles for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  