were cited on this point. An investigation of it has brought to light the following decisions, which we cite for the benefit of counsel without further comment. Puett v. Beard, 86 Ind. 172; Temple v. Scott, 3 Minn. 419 (Gil. 306); Curlee v. Thomas, 74 N. C. 51; Duff v. Wells, 7 BHeisk. 17; Wilson v. McElroy, 32 Pa. St. 82.
It was also said that no equity could arise in favor of defendant, because he purchased the judgment he now seeks to offset with knowledge of plaintiff's insolvency, and for the express purpose of using the judgment as an offset, and that plaintiff paid practically nothing for it. These facts do not appear on the face of the answer to which plaintiff has demurred. A reply embracing them would, if sustained by proof, or demurred to, raise this question. We do not decide it now. The order appealed from is reversed, plaintiff to have 10 days after the All remittitur is filed in which to reply to defendant's offset. concur.
MARY ANN BAUER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES
BAUER, Defendant and Appellant.
Compelling Support of Wife-Jurisdiction-Service of Summons.
The district court can obtain jurisdiction of the proceedings authorized by chapter 167 of the Laws of 1890 to compel a husband to support his wife only by service of a summons, as in other cases in equity.
(Opinion Filed July 27, 1891.)
APPEAL from district court, Pembina county; Hon. CHARLES F. TEMPLETON, Judge.
W. J. Kneeshaue, for appellant. E. W. Conmy, for respondent.
Action to compel the defendant to support the plaintiff and her children, instituted by issuing an order to show cause why temporary alimony should not be awarded. On the return day defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that no summons had been served on the defendant. Objection overruled. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
