
    Evelyn T. Provost, Resp’t, v. William Y. Provost, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 9, 1892.)
    
    Divorce—Service.
    On a motion to set aside a decree of divorce on the ground that no papers in the action were served, defendant’s affidavit stated that no papers were served on him by the sheriff. In opposition thereto proof of service out of the state pursuant to an order was shown and a letter from. defendant to his son admitting such service. Held, that the motion was-properly denied.
    Appeal from order denying motion to set aside a judgment in an action for divorce.
    The defendant resided in Chicago. Plaintiff obtained an order for service without the state,, and after filing the originals, sent copies of the summons, complaint and order to the sheriff of Cook county, Illinois, for service. Upon receipt of proofs of service, it was found that the copy order sent was annexed thereto, but upon inquiry it was ascertained that the sheriff, believing it to be an original order, served a copy thereof.
    Defendant’s affidavit states that no papers were served on him. .by said sheriff.
    Plaintiff, in addition to affidavits stating such facts, produced & letter from defendant to his son stating: “ A few days since I was served with papers for a divorce suit instituted by your mother against myself, and making Mrs. * * * co-respondent ; could you not have selected some other ? ”
    
      George A. Stearns, for app’lt; David Provost, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made by the defendant to set aside a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant..

The action is by a wife against her husband for an absolute-divorce on the ground of adultery. The summons, complaint and notice were served upon the defendant in pursuance of an, order of the court.

The motion was based upon the affidavit of the defendant that no papers were ever served upon him in the action, and the affidavit of another person tending to corroborate the affidavit of the-defendant.

_ The papers were served in Chicago, where the defendant resides, and the proof of service is full and satisfactory.

Moreover, the affidavits read in opposition to the motion show plainly that such service was made, and that the affidavit of the-defendant is false.

The appeal is entirely destitute of merit, and the order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.  