King v. Superior Court

DOGLING, J.

Petitioner’s wife instituted an action for divorce. Pursuant to an order for publication of summons of May 9, 1949 personal service was made on petitioner in the State of Nevada on June 27, 1949. Such personal service outside the state does not give greater jurisdiction than any other substituted service.

(First National Bank

v.

Eastman,

144 Cal. 487, 490-491 [77 P. 1043, 103 Am.St.Rep. 95, 1 Ann. Cas. 626].) It does not give jurisdiction over the person.

[92]

(Frey & Horgan Corp.

v.

Superior Court,

5 Cal.2d 401, 404 [55 P.2d 203].) In divorce matters it brings the marital status before the court but not the person of the defendant so that the court lacks jurisdiction to award alimony or any allowance for the support of children. (De

La Montanya

v. De

La Montanya,

112 Cal. 101 [44 P. 345, 53 Am.St.Rep. 165, 32 L.R.A. 82] ;

Comfort

v.

Comfort,

17 Cal.2d 736, 751 [112 P.2d 259].) After default the court granted an interlocutory decree in which it disposed of community property and gave custody of the children to the mother but did not grant any alimony, support of children or attorneys’ fees and costs. The decree contains the following final provision: “ (T)he Court reserves the further right to adjudge and assess further costs, attorneys’ fees or other amounts in this or any further proceeding or proceedings which may be taken. ’ ’ On November 4, 1949, the court upon affidavit of the wife issued an order to show cause why petitioner should not be ordered to pay to the wife moneys for the support and maintenance of herself and the minor children of the parties and on account of attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner was personally served with that order on November 5, 1949, within the State of California. At the time indicated in the order, November 28, 1949, petitioner, appearing specially, moved to vacate certain parts of the decree as to the disposition of community property and the above quoted reservation solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and also contested the jurisdiction of the court to make a further order. The court denied the motion to vacate and by order of February 3, 1950, ordered petitioner to pay $200 a month for the support of the wife, $200 a month for the children and $500 on account of fees and $100 on account of costs. The order recites the reservation of determination of the matter of support and fees and costs in the interlocutory decree. On March 20,1950, the court issued an order to show cause