Clark v. Clark

Michigan Supreme Court

Clark v. Clark

96 N.W. 924, 134 Mich. 602, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 688

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 27, 1903

DocketDocket No. 11

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 96 N.W. 924 (Clark v. Clark) 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

Clark v. Clark, 96 N.W. 924, 134 Mich. 602, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 688 (Mich. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

This is a suit to partition a house and lot, which complainant and defendant, who are brothers, own as tenants in common. The decree of the lower court ordered the property to be sold, and the proceeds of sale divided. Defendant claims compensation, out of these proceeds, for the reasonable worth of caring for and maintaining for many years the aged mother of complainant and himself. The trial court disallowed said claim, and the correctness of this decision is the sole question raised by this appeal.

We think the claim was properly disallowed. The testimony clearly proves, as found by the trial judge, that defendant maintained his mother under an agreement with complainant that, as compensation therefor, he should have the use of the property in suit, and that he did have the use of said property. Nor was defendant’s agreement any less effectual because the consideration which supported it — the use of the property — belonged to the mother, and not to complainant. Rorabacher v. Lee, 16 Mich. 169.

The decree will be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Carpenter, J.

This is a suit to partition a house and lot, which complainant and defendant, who are brothers, own as tenants in common. The decree of the lower court ordered the property to be sold, and the proceeds of sale divided. Defendant claims compensation, out of these proceeds, for the reasonable worth of caring for and maintaining for many years the aged mother of complainant and himself. The trial court disallowed said claim, and the correctness of this decision is the sole question raised by this appeal.

We think the claim was properly disallowed. The testimony clearly proves, as found by the trial judge, that defendant maintained his mother under an agreement with complainant that, as compensation therefor, he should have the use of the property in suit, and that he did have the use of said property. Nor was defendant’s agreement any less effectual because the consideration which supported it — the use of the property — belonged to the mother, and not to complainant. Rorabacher v. Lee, 16 Mich. 169.

The decree will be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 N.W. 924, 134 Mich. 602, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-clark-mich-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack