Bankers Trust Co. v. Humber

249 N.W. 454, 264 Mich. 71, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 952
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided June 29, 1933·No. Docket No. 108, Calendar No. 37,158.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

From dismissal of judgment creditor's bill plaintiff has appealed.

The facts will be implied from statement of the question which is: May a creditor of the husband alone have right by appropriate process to seize rents and income of entireties property? The answer is "No," on the authority of AmericanState Trust Co. v. Rosenthal, 255 Mich. 157, in which earlier decisions are discussed.

The facts do not make a case where the husband has placed funds or property in an entireties estate in fraud of his creditors, so Morse v. Roach, 229 Mich. 538; Lemerise v.Robinson, 241 Mich. 528, and like cases are not in point.

Affirmed, with costs.

McDONALD, C.J., and POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred. *Page 73

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

Bankers Trust Co. v. Humber, 249 N.W. 454, 264 Mich. 71, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 952 (Mich. 1933).

249 N.W. 454 (Bankers Trust Co. v. Humber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morris v. Wolfe
210 N.W.2d 16 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1973)
United States v. Nathanson
60 F. Supp. 193 (E.D. Michigan, 1945)
Arrand v. Graham
298 N.W. 281 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1941)
Gessner v. Commissioner
32 B.T.A. 1258 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1935)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hart
76 F.2d 864 (Sixth Circuit, 1935)