Hazelton v. Hazelton

Michigan Supreme Court

Hazelton v. Hazelton

127 N.W. 297, 162 Mich. 192, 1910 Mich. LEXIS 1015

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 14, 1910

DocketDocket No. 44

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 N.W. 297 (Hazelton v. Hazelton) 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

Hazelton v. Hazelton, 127 N.W. 297, 162 Mich. 192, 1910 Mich. LEXIS 1015 (Mich. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, J.

As this cause is for divorce, and is mainly a question of fact, it requires no lengthy discussion, especially as no possible good could follow the spreading of the differences of the parties upon the records of the court or the pages of its reports. The application is by the husband, and an earnest effort to familiarize ourselves with the testimony has induced the conviction that complainant has proved his case. Counsel for defendant say that the proof shows mere incompatibility. We think it shows more. That there was incompatibility is obvious enough, [193]*193but we think its manifestations on the part of the defendant amounted to extreme cruelty. It is contended that complainant is not entitled to a divorce, because of his con-donation of defendant’s misconduct. We are oftthe opinion that the case is well within the rule of Creyts v. Creyts, 133 Mich. 4 (94 N. W. 383). See, also, Creech v. Creech, 126 Mich. 267 (85 N. W. 726).

It appears that the parties have one child, which is with the mother. There is no evidence of unfitness on the part of the mother to have charge of it, and its custody will be awarded to her until it reaches the age of 14 years, or until the further ordey of the circuit court. No request for alimony or provision for the maintenance of the child has been made. We therefore recommit the case to the circuit court for further proceedings in this regard should application be made hereafter.

A decree in conformity to the above opinion may be taken, granting to complainant a decree of divorce from the bonds of matrimony, and allowing to defendant her expenses of printing, and a solicitor’s fee of $75.

Ostrander, Moore, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.

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

Hooker, J.

As this cause is for divorce, and is mainly a question of fact, it requires no lengthy discussion, especially as no possible good could follow the spreading of the differences of the parties upon the records of the court or the pages of its reports. The application is by the husband, and an earnest effort to familiarize ourselves with the testimony has induced the conviction that complainant has proved his case. Counsel for defendant say that the proof shows mere incompatibility. We think it shows more. That there was incompatibility is obvious enough, [193]*193but we think its manifestations on the part of the defendant amounted to extreme cruelty. It is contended that complainant is not entitled to a divorce, because of his con-donation of defendant’s misconduct. We are oftthe opinion that the case is well within the rule of Creyts v. Creyts, 133 Mich. 4 (94 N. W. 383). See, also, Creech v. Creech, 126 Mich. 267 (85 N. W. 726).

It appears that the parties have one child, which is with the mother. There is no evidence of unfitness on the part of the mother to have charge of it, and its custody will be awarded to her until it reaches the age of 14 years, or until the further ordey of the circuit court. No request for alimony or provision for the maintenance of the child has been made. We therefore recommit the case to the circuit court for further proceedings in this regard should application be made hereafter.

A decree in conformity to the above opinion may be taken, granting to complainant a decree of divorce from the bonds of matrimony, and allowing to defendant her expenses of printing, and a solicitor’s fee of $75.

Ostrander, Moore, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 N.W. 297, 162 Mich. 192, 1910 Mich. LEXIS 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazelton-v-hazelton-mich-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack