Berry v. Ferrell

146 N.W. 103, 179 Mich. 498, 1914 Mich. LEXIS 530
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 27, 1914
DocketDocket No. 149
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 N.W. 103 (Berry v. Ferrell) 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
Berry v. Ferrell, 146 N.W. 103, 179 Mich. 498, 1914 Mich. LEXIS 530 (Mich. 1914).

Opinion

Moore, J.

The bill of complaint was filed in this case February 11, 1911. Omitting its formal parts, it states in substance as follows:

“That Floyd Ferrell and Allen H. Ferrell are brothers and defendants herein. Complainant married Floyd Ferrell on or about the 20th day of October, 1901, and was divorced from him on the 15th day of December, 1906. She was married to Allen H. Ferrell, the brother of said Floyd, on the 24th day of De[499]*499cember, 1906, and secured a divorce from him on the grounds of extreme cruelty op the 2d day of March, 1908. She is the mother of one child, Wylan A. Ferrell, of the age of four years. That each of said defendants have repeatedly stated to complainant and to others that said child was a bastard, and that neither of them was its father. That, at the time of the granting of said decrees of divorce, each of said defendants refused to recognize said child as his child, and denied the paternity thereof, and made an agreement in writing with complainant that she should have the care and custody of said child, and that she would not call upon them, or either of them, for any financial help in the care and support of said child; it being understood that the father and mother of complainant, Albert Cheesbro and Olive Cheesbro, would assist complainant in rearing said child. She further represents that she has, ever since the granting of said decrees of divorce, faithfully carried out her agreement, and never at any timé asked for, or received, any assistance whatever from either of said defendants for the care, support, or clothing of her said child. That she and her father and mother are abundantly able to care for, maintain, and support said child without their interference, and will do so. That said child has been in the care, custody, and control of complainant ever since it was born, except when visiting its grandparents, Albert Cheesbro and Olive Cheesbro, at Devils Lake. Said child is well cared for in every way, bountifully provided for in the way of food and clothing, and is treated kindly, and is being reared in proper surroundings, has never been abandoned by this complainant nor its said grandparents. That Allen H. Ferrell, * * * without the knowledge or consent of this complainant, made what purports to be a declaration of adoption of said child on the 11th day of November, 1910, falsely and fraudulently charging in said declaration that complainant had abandoned her said child, Wylan A. Ferrell; said declaration being signed by each of said defendants. That on the 9th day of November, 1910, the county agent, Howard Hopkins, made his certificate and certified that the moral character of said Allen H. Ferrell was good, after investigation, also certified his approval of the adoption of said child by the said [500]*500Allen H. Ferrell. Some time during the month of November, 1910, the defendant Floyd Ferrell made an affidavit that complainant has abandoned her child, Wylan A. Ferrell, also that the mother of defendants is a good woman to have the care of, and will make a home for, said child, and that the said Allen H. Ferrell is of good'character. That the jurat to said last-mentioned affidavit does not bear any date; this complainant is not therefore informed as to the exact date thereof. That all of said papers hereinbefore referred to were filed with the probate court of Lenawee county on the 13th day of January, 1911. On said date an order was, by the judge of probate, made, confirming the adoption of the said Wylan A. Ferrell by the said Allen H. Ferrell and ordering that the said Allen H. Ferrell stand in the place of parent to said child. That complainant has never had any notice whatever of any of the proceedings hereinbefore referred to taken by the said defendants, or either of them, to have her said child, Wylan A. Ferrell, adopted to the said Allen H. Ferrell. Had she been so notified, she would have appeared and opposed any such proceedings and shown by competent witnesses that said affidavits were false and a fraud upon the rights of this complainant and the grandparents of said child. On the 1st day of February, 1911, said defendants, or one of them, complainant is informed and believes, sent one of the deputy sheriffs of said county to the home of complainant’s father and mother, Albert Cheesbro and Olive Cheesbro, who reside at Devils Lake, said county, where said child was stopping, to demand and take said child, claiming that Allen H. Ferrell has legally adopted said child and was therefore entitled to his custody and possession. The request of said officer to deliver said child to him was refused. That the date when said demand for the custody of said child was made, February 1, 1911, was the first information of any kind whatever that the grandparents or this complainant had that such adoption proceedings had been taken. That neither of the defendants» nor their mother are fit nor proper persons to have the care and custody of said child, for the reason that the mother of defendants is an old person and feeble and lacks the required judgment to care for a child of tender years. She is informed and believes that the [501]*501said Allen has not improved in conduct or morals since she secured a divorce from him upon the grounds of drunkenness and cruelty. That he is a very profane man, using frequently the most vile, vulgar, and profane language, and is not particular in whose presence he indulges in such conduct. That he is not fit to live with nor be in the presence of any decent woman or child any length of time. That he was divorced at two different times, besides he is not truthful, and complainant believes will lie at any time or on any occasion when deception and prevarication will serve his purpose best. That the said Floyd Ferrell is not much more truthful than the said Allen. * * * That she believes from the acts and conduct of said defendants that they jointly and severally entered into a conspiracy to get possession of her said child without her knowledge or consent, and * * * deliberately, wilfully, maliciously, and falsely, by their false statements so made under oath in the declaration of adoption and affidavits made by them, * * * misled and deceived the judge of probate and the said county agent, and by reason of and on account of .said false and misleading statements the said Allen H. Ferrell secured the order of said court confirming said adoption. That since the confirmation of said adoption by said court the said Allen has threatened to remove said child, Wylan A. Ferrell, from the custody of complainant and his said grandparents, and bases his right to such possession and custody upon the order so falsely and fraudulently obtained from said judge of probate. * * * That she has, on account of said proceedings so taken as aforesaid, been -obliged to seek the aid of this court of equity to get relief from said order of adoption and to retain the custody and control of her said child, and has been put to great and unnecessary expense on account thereof, in employing counsel, officers’ fees, court expense, and witnesses, in addition to the loss of complainant’s time.”

And complainant alleges that she has no relief in the premises except in this court of equity, and prays as follows:

“(1) That defendants may answer this bill of com[502]*502plaint, but not on oath (their answer on oath being hereby waived).
“(2) That all of the proceedings in said 'probate court hereinbefore referred to, relating to the adoption of said infant child Wylan A. Ferrell, including the order of confirmation of adoption, be set aside and annulled.

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

Related

In Re MacLoughlin
266 N.W.2d 800 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1978)
Faught Ex Rel. Faught v. Washam
329 S.W.2d 588 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 N.W. 103, 179 Mich. 498, 1914 Mich. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-ferrell-mich-1914.