Flanagan v. Flanagan

Michigan Supreme Court

Flanagan v. Flanagan

74 N.W. 460, 116 Mich. 185, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 663

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 74 N.W. 460 (Flanagan v. Flanagan) 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

Flanagan v. Flanagan, 74 N.W. 460, 116 Mich. 185, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 663 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Counsel for defendant claim that the bill itself shows that complainant is not his lawful wife, and insist that the case is within Clancy v. Clancy, 66 Mich. 202, Rose v. Rose, 67 Mich. 619, and Van Dusan v. Van Dusan, 97 Mich. 70.

In Clancy v. Clancy the relation of the parties was [187]*187evidenced by a written agreement, which the court held not to constitute a marriage, but only a state of concubinage. In Rose v. Rose the bill did not aver a marriage, or that defendant ever promised to recognize complainant as his wife. Their relation was an unlawful one. In Van Dusan v. Van Dusan a marriage was alleged in the bill, but upon the proofs the court found that there was none. Mr. Van Dusan was married when complainant and he entered into their unlawful relations. He after-wards obtained a divorce from his wife, and it was held that the parties did not, after that, change their unlawful relations.

In the present case, complainant alleges that she and defendant did change their relation after he had informed her of his former marriage and his divorce, and recognized the marriage ceremony which had been performed as binding upon them. We are not prepared to say that under these allegations the marital relation did not exist. Proofs are necessary to determine what the relation of the parties actually was, and this was the course pursued in two of the cases above cited.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Counsel for defendant claim that the bill itself shows that complainant is not his lawful wife, and insist that the case is within Clancy v. Clancy, 66 Mich. 202, Rose v. Rose, 67 Mich. 619, and Van Dusan v. Van Dusan, 97 Mich. 70.

In Clancy v. Clancy the relation of the parties was [187]*187evidenced by a written agreement, which the court held not to constitute a marriage, but only a state of concubinage. In Rose v. Rose the bill did not aver a marriage, or that defendant ever promised to recognize complainant as his wife. Their relation was an unlawful one. In Van Dusan v. Van Dusan a marriage was alleged in the bill, but upon the proofs the court found that there was none. Mr. Van Dusan was married when complainant and he entered into their unlawful relations. He after-wards obtained a divorce from his wife, and it was held that the parties did not, after that, change their unlawful relations.

In the present case, complainant alleges that she and defendant did change their relation after he had informed her of his former marriage and his divorce, and recognized the marriage ceremony which had been performed as binding upon them. We are not prepared to say that under these allegations the marital relation did not exist. Proofs are necessary to determine what the relation of the parties actually was, and this was the course pursued in two of the cases above cited.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 N.W. 460, 116 Mich. 185, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flanagan-v-flanagan-mich-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack