Stierlen

In denying the application for a hearing in this court after decision by the district court of appeal for the first district, it is proper to .say that the following paragraph in the opinion, namely: “In this state a void judgment is not governed by section 473, Code of Civil Procedure—our corresponding section to the North Dakota section above cited (George Frank Co. v. Leopold & Ferron Co., 13 Cal. App. 59 , [ 108 Pac. 878 ])” is not necessary to the decision. In so far as this may be construed as applying to any judgment not void on its face—viz., on an inspection of the judgment-roll—we doubt its correctness, and withhold our approval therefrom.

The application for a hearing in this court is denied.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendants, and from an order refusing a new trial, in an action to annul the marriage of the defendants.

In February, 1886, the plaintiff and the defendant George Stierlen were married in San Francisco. There they continuously resided from that time until the month of March, 1896, when George Stierlen left plaintiff, and after visiting several places, arrived in the state of North Dakota in the following month, where he remained until the following November, when he returned to California and permanently resumed his residence here—having been absent from the state for not more than seven months. While in North Dakota, and in the month of July, he filed in that state a complaint in divorce against the plaintiff herein. Within the time allowed by law she filed an answer, which she subsequently withdrew; and the court, after hearing the evidence introduced on behalf of George Stierlen, on the seventeenth day of November, 1896, dissolved the marriage. Upon the entry of the decree George Stierlen left the state of North Dakota and returned to California, as above mentioned, where on the twenty-seventh day of November, a few…

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendants, and from an order refusing a new trial, in an action to annul the marriage of the defendants. In February, 1886, the plaintiff and the defendant George Stierlen were married in San Francisco. There they continuously resided from that time until the month of March, 1896, when George Stierlen left plaintiff, and after visiting several places, arrived in the state of North Dakota in the following month, where he remained until the following November, when he returned to California and permanently resumed his residence here — having been absent from the state for not more than seven months. While in North Dakota, and in the month of July, he filed in that state a complaint in divorce against the plaintiff herein. Within the time allowed by law she filed an answer, which she subsequently withdrew; and the court, after hearing the evidence introduced on behalf of George Stierlen, on the seventeenth day of November, 1896, dissolved the marriage. Upon the entry of the decree George Stierlen left the state of North Dakota and returned to California, as above mentioned, where on the twenty-seventh day of November,…