Amburgey v. Amburgey

Michigan Supreme Court

Amburgey v. Amburgey

251 Mich. 171

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 2, 1930

DocketDocket No. 84, Calendar No. 34,732

StatusPublished

This text of 251 Mich. 171 (Amburgey v. Amburgey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amburgey v. Amburgey, 251 Mich. 171 (Mich. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

Defendant filed a petition for the custody, care, and control of Russell Amburgey, a child about ten years old, and to amend a decree of divorce granted plaintiff, Boyd Amburgey, October 7, 1921, giving him the care, custody, and control of the minor child. No pleadings, calendar entries, or final order appear in the printed record. Nothing is presented for review. The appeal might be dismissed on this ground. The files in the clerk’s office show a final order granting the prayer of the petitioner. The testimony is conflicting. The trial judge saw the witnesses. "We are not, on this record, inclined to disturb his order, which is affirmed with costs.

Wiest, C. J., and Btjtzbl, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Potter, J.

Defendant filed a petition for the custody, care, and control of Russell Amburgey, a child about ten years old, and to amend a decree of divorce granted plaintiff, Boyd Amburgey, October 7, 1921, giving him the care, custody, and control of the minor child. No pleadings, calendar entries, or final order appear in the printed record. Nothing is presented for review. The appeal might be dismissed on this ground. The files in the clerk’s office show a final order granting the prayer of the petitioner. The testimony is conflicting. The trial judge saw the witnesses. "We are not, on this record, inclined to disturb his order, which is affirmed with costs.

Wiest, C. J., and Btjtzbl, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 Mich. 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amburgey-v-amburgey-mich-1930.