1. Where the court in which the divorce was obtained (in this case, Nevada), has jurisdiction over the subject-matter and its powers are limited to the granting of relief to a resident of the state, its adjudication that the complainant is such a resident is final, unless it is made to appear that the court was led to this conclusion by fraud perpetrated upon it by the complainant. That fraud is a fact that will never be presumed, but must always be proved clearly and convincingly.
2. Held, that the charge that fraud was perpetrated by the defendant husband on the Nevada court in obtaining a divorce on the ground of cruelty against his wife, has neither been convincingly nor clearly proved.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court of chancery by Advisory Master Reed.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, BROGAN, HEHER, KAYS, HETFIELD, WELLS, KERNEY, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.