discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lichtig v. Lichtig Karlin v. Karlin, (1939) 280 N.Y. 32 , 19 N.E.2d 669 ; Van Dusen v. Van Dusen, (1940) 258 App. Div. 1020 , 17 N.Y,S.2d 96; Kahler v. Searl, (1940) 259 App. Div. 729 , 18 N.Y.S.2d 246 , revg 172 Misc. 79 , 13 N.Y.S.2d 882 ; Cunningham v. Cunningham, (1941) 261 App. Div. 973 , 25 N.Y.S.2d 933 (semble); Frost v. Frost, (1947) 189 Misc. 133 , 71 N.Y.S.2d 438 ; Griffin v. Griffin, (1946) 327 U.S. 220 , 90 L.ed. 635, 66 S.Ct. 556 , reh den 328 U.S. 876 , 90 L.ed. 1645, 66 S.Ct. 975 ; Lechner v. Lechner, (1944) 154 Fla. 114 , 16 So.2d 816 .

discussed Cited "see" Stewart v. Stewart See Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220 , 66 S.Ct. 556 , 90 L.Ed. 635 , reh. denied, *9 328 U.S. 876 , 66 S.Ct. 975 , 90 L.Ed. 1645 (1946); Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 , 61 S.Ct. 115 , 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940); Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U.S. 141 , 27 S.Ct. 434 , 51 L.Ed. 745 (1907).” As we have earlier pointed out there is no contention that there was any lack of jurisdiction over the person of the husband since he did appear in the Virginia litigation.