A petition by a libelant for modification of an order for support of a minor child and for alimony in divorce proceedings is a continuation of the original litigation over which the court had jurisdiction and notice to the non-resident libelee of such petition is sufficient when served upon him at his residence outside the state. A non-resident libelee is held to have submitted to the jurisdiction of this court in proceedings by the libelant to modify a divorce decree where he appeared by counsel in the original proceedings and himself signed a stipulation at that time dealing generally with matters concerning such proceedings and invoked the aid of the court to integrate them in a binding decree for his benefit as well as that of the libelant.
BLANDIN, J.
The present proceedings are a continuation of the original litigation and under our laws may be taken upon constructive notice such as was given here. Cowles v. Cowles, 80 N.H. 530; Bussey v. Bussey, 94 N.H. 328, 330. It appears, therefore, that if the court obtained jurisdiction in the original proceedings, the libelee's motion to dismiss the present petition for lack of jurisdiction was properly denied.
The libelee appeared by counsel in the original proceedings and himself signed a stipulation which covered both custody and support for the child. This stipulation dealing generally with matters concerning the divorce proceedings and invoking the aid of the court to integrate them in a binding decree (Eaton v. Eaton, 90 N.H. 4, and cases cited), portions of which were beneficial to the libelee, is sufficient to hold that he submitted to jurisdiction and may not now object. Dolber v. Young, 81 N.H. 157; Robinson v. Potter, 43 N.H. 188, 190, 191; Noyes v. Noyes, 110 Vt. 511; 6 C.J.S., Appearances, ss. 12, i (1) 13.
Exception overruled.
All concurred.