Brick v. Brick

33 N.W. 761, 65 Mich. 230, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 589
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 33 N.W. 761 (Brick v. Brick) 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
Brick v. Brick, 33 N.W. 761, 65 Mich. 230, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 589 (Mich. 1887).

Opinion

Champlin, J.

In this case a decree was granted dissolving the marriage between the parties, and awarding alimony in gross to complainant.

Defendant appeals from this decree, and complains especially of that part respecting alimony. It appears from the printed record that the decree below was entered by the consent of defendant by his solicitor. Such a decree is binding upon the parties, unless impeached for fraud or mistake^ and no such claim is advanced on this appeal.

It follows that the decree must be affirmed. As the complainant has filed no brief, costs will not be awarded.

The other Justices concurred.

In this case a rehearing was ordered, and the following opinion filed July 7, 1887:

Campbell, C. J.

This case was heard and decided at the January term, the appeal being dismissed because ■lm c-.... [231]*231appeared to be a consent decree. A showing was afterwards made that this entry was a mistake, and that the consent was merely to waive some matters of technicality. We therefore allowed a rehearing.

TJpon review of the facts, we think complainant made out such a case of personal violence and cruelty as justified the court below in granting a divorce.

The alimony granted was the conveyance of defendant’s interest in a lot of land. This is not a usual method, but we do not see that it does any wrong here. The property is of small value comparatively, and the circumstances of its acquisition render it quite just that complainant should have it. We are not disposed to disturb the decree, and it is affirmed. No costs beyond taxed costs are called for.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Gordon v. City of Warren Planning & Urban Renewal Commission
185 N.W.2d 61 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971)
Campbell v. Rose Street Improvement Co.
194 N.W. 574 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Campau v. Lockwood
192 N.W. 545 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Montgomery v. Montgomery
190 N.W. 687 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Hart v. State Fire Marshal
146 N.W. 169 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Cameron v. Smith
137 N.W. 265 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Reeves v. Reeves
76 N.W. 4 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1898)
Omaha Fire Insurance v. Maxwell, Sharp & Ross Co.
56 N.W. 1028 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 N.W. 761, 65 Mich. 230, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brick-v-brick-mich-1887.