Finally, Oklahoma courts are permitted to entertain a wife's action for alimony provided the court has jurisdiction over both defendants, this proposition being true even if the parties are legally divorced under a decree of another State, so long as the wife did not personally appear in the divorce proceeding. Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U.S. 416 (1957); Daniel v. Daniel, 348 P.2d 185 (Okla. 1959). Petitioners first contend that the Oklahoma proceeding irrevocably assigned a substantial interest in the trust income to Mary Dean, and the principles enunciated in Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U.S. 5 (1937), and Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579 (1941), operate to exclude the amount of these payments from petitioners' gross income.
That unsatisfactory state of affairs was well known to the drafters of our long-arm statutes. See Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U.S. 416, 77 S.Ct. 1360, 1 L.Ed.2d 1456 (1957); Daniel v. Daniel, 348 P.2d 185, 188 (Okla. 1959). In 1970 this court concluded that an Oklahoma court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a marital action where the record showed that the defendant had five contacts with the State of Oklahoma.
12 O.S. 1971 ยง 162[ 12-162].Daniel v. Daniel, 348 P.2d 185, 186 (Okla. 1959). Next we are presented with two ultimate issues.
It is unnecessary to consider the first contention of the defendant that the notice by publication was defective, because the requirement for such notice was waived by the general appearance of the defendant. Daniel v. Daniel, Okla., 348 P.2d 185; Porter v. Oklahoma Bacone College Trust, Okla., 346 P.2d 335, cert. denied 363 U.S. 927, 80 S.Ct. 754, 4 L.Ed.2d 746; Griffin v. Jones, supra. The second contention of the defendant that the trial court rendered judgment beyond the issues framed by the petition of the plaintiff is unrelated to jurisdiction of the person, and will be considered on its merits.