Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/35

This page needs to be proofread.
TUTTLE v. TUTTLE COURT
11

the record there presented, which bears upon the rights of the parties in this action.

Opinion filed January 29, 1921. Rehearing denied March 17, 1921.

Appeal from the District Court of Kidder County, Graham, Special Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

Affirmed.

L. A. Simpson, and S. E. Ellsworth, for appellant.

Lawrence & Murphy, for respondent.

Christianson, J. In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover damages in the sum of $300,000, which she alleges she has sustained by reason of a certain judgment, wrongfully obtained against her by the defendant. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court was correct in ruling that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The substance of the complaint is as follows: That on and long prior to October 23, 1907, the plaintiff was the wife of the defendant; that on or about that date the defendant, claiming to be a resident of the state of North Dakota, commenced an action in divorce against the plaintiff in the district court of Burleigh county, in this state,—alleging as grounds of divorce extreme cruelty and desertion; that on being served with the papers in such divorce action, the plaintiff employed three firms of attorneys, one in Chicago, Illinois, one at Jamestown, North Dakota, and one at Bismarck, North Dakota; that said attorneys in due time, in her behalf, interposed an answer denying the averments of the complaint, and alleging by way of cross complaint and counterclaim that the defendant had been guilty of extreme cruelty towards the plaintiff, and had wilfully and without cause continued to live apart from her since July, 1905; that in said cross complaint and counterclaim it was further alleged that the plaintiff was without means; that the defendant was possessed of property of the value of about $1,000,000; that all of said property had been accumulated during the married life of plaintiff and defendant; that in said answer and cross complaint the plaintiff prayed as relief “that she be granted temporary alimony during