We are not inclined to follow this holding. In Kirkland v. Greer, 295 Ky. 535, 174 S.W.2d 745 (1943), the court on this point stated: We do not agree with appellant's contention that the Courts of Kentucky should decline to take jurisdiction merely because the parties to the litigation are non-residents and the cause of action accrued outside the State. Granted that in such cases the exercise of jurisdiction by the Kentucky Courts is discretionary, nevertheless, in the absence of special circumstances making it impracticable to do full justice between the parties, the principles of comity would seem to dictate their exercise of such jurisdiction.
Where the Nevada court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, its decree is valid and binding and is entitled to full faith and credit in Missouri in a collateral attack thereon. Williams v. State of North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 63 S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 143, A.L.R. 1273; Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562; Gould v. Crow, 57 Mo. 200; Anthony v. Rice, 110 Mo. 223, 19 S.W. 423; Lieber v. Lieber, 239 Mo. 1, 143 S.W. 458; Howard v. Strode, 242 Mo. 210, 146 S.W. 792; Wagoner v. Wagoner, 306 Mo. 241, 267 S.W. 654; Taffel v. Taffel, 43 N.Y.S.2d 777; In re: Fine's Estate, 44 N.Y.S.2d 62; Atkinson v. Atkinson, 132 F.2d 917; Bassett v. Bassett, 51 F. Supp. 545; Davis v. Davis, 59 S.Ct. 3; Miller v. Miller, 122 F.2d 209; Durlacher v. Durlacher, 123 F.2d 70; Kirkland v. Greer, 174 S.W.2d 745; Wright v. Wright, 165 S.W.2d 870; Marx v. Fore, 51 Mo. 69; Wagoner v. Wagoner, 287 Mo. 567, 229 S.W. 1064; Ray v. Ray, 330 Mo. 530, 50 S.W.2d 142; Barrett v. Barrett, 79 S.W.2d 506; Van Emelen v. Van Emelen, 162 S.W.2d 272. [728] WESTHUES, C.