## Facts

- Edmund McQuigg (husband) filed a petition for divorce from Eliza Jane McQuigg (wife) in the Marion Circuit Court in Indiana on January 4, 1844.
- Edmund filed an affidavit of nonresidence so that notice of the divorce proceeding was given only by publication.
- Eliza did not appear, and on May 14, 1844, the Marion Circuit Court granted Edmund a divorce by default.
- After obtaining the decree, Edmund married another woman.
- In August 1857, Eliza filed an independent complaint in equity to set aside the 1844 divorce decree as fraudulently obtained.
- Eliza alleged the decree was procured by fraud on the court because Edmund was not a bona fide resident of Marion County or Indiana when he filed for divorce; instead, he was a resident of Tioga County, New York, and came to Indiana only temporarily and for the sole purpose of obtaining a divorce, intending to return to New York afterward.
- The trial court granted Eliza relief and set aside (annulled) the 1844 divorce decree.
- Edmund appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana.

## Issues

1. Whether a divorce decree may be annulled in an independent equitable action when it was allegedly procured by fraud going to the court’s jurisdiction, such as a false claim of bona fide residence in Indiana.
2. Whether statutory limits on rehearing or “review” of divorce decrees bar a separate suit in equity to impeach a divorce judgment for fraud.
3. Whether the husband’s intervening remarriage and the passage of time prevent equitable relief on these facts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the judgment for Eliza setting aside the earlier divorce decree.
- The court recognized that an independent equitable action can attack a divorce decree for fraud in obtaining it, including fraud that induced the divorce court to act without proper jurisdiction.
- Allegations that the husband was never a bona fide Indiana resident, but only sojourned in the state to secure a divorce, stated a jurisdictional fraud sufficient to support annulment of the decree.
- Statutory restrictions on direct “review” of divorce judgments did not preclude a separate equity suit based on fraud.
- The court did not treat Edmund’s remarriage, on this record, as an absolute bar to setting aside a decree obtained through fraud on the court.

## Legal Principles

- A court of equity may annul a divorce decree procured by fraud in its procurement.
- Fraud that goes to divorce jurisdiction—such as a fabricated or bad-faith claim of bona fide residence made to invoke the forum’s divorce power—may justify setting aside the decree.
- Statutory limits on rehearing, review, or similar post-judgment procedures for divorce decrees do not eliminate the separate equitable remedy for fraud on the court.
- Delay and intervening reliance interests (including a later marriage) may matter in equity, but they do not automatically validate a decree obtained through jurisdictional fraud.

## Conclusion

McQuigg holds that an Indiana divorce decree may be annulled in equity when the plaintiff obtained it by fraud that created only an appearance of jurisdiction—here, by claiming (in substance) a bona fide Indiana residence while actually residing in New York and coming to Indiana only to secure a divorce—and that statutory restrictions on direct review of divorce decrees do not bar a separate fraud-based equitable attack; the trial court’s annulment of the divorce decree was affirmed.


McQuigg v. McQuigg, 13 Ind. 294 (1859)