Johnson v. Onsted

Michigan Supreme Court

Johnson v. Onsted

42 N.W. 62, 74 Mich. 437, 1889 Mich. LEXIS 669

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 12, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 42 N.W. 62 (Johnson v. Onsted) 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

Johnson v. Onsted, 42 N.W. 62, 74 Mich. 437, 1889 Mich. LEXIS 669 (Mich. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

In this case Ida B. Onsted was divorced from her husband, the defendant, on February 13, 1874, and by the decree she obtained was given the ■care, management, and maintenance of their child, a little girl then about three years old. Ida married the plaintiff in September, 1874 ,who immediately took her and the ■child to his home, and has cared for the child as he would his own ever since, with a full knowledge of the provisions of the decree between his wife and the defendant. It does not appear that in her suit for divorce .Mrs. Onsted either asked for or obtained any order for •cither temporary or permanent alimony. Mr. Onsted [438]*438lives about four miles from the plaintiff. He never demanded the custody of this child; neither has plaintiff ever demanded any pay for keeping her, or ever had any talk or agreement with defendant regarding it, or about, her care or support. Under the foregoing facts the plaintiff brought suit in assumpsit against the defendant for the care, support, and maintenance of defendant's child while she lived in his family. The cause was tried in the Lenawee circuit, before Judge Watts, with a jury. At the close of the testimony the learned circuit judges directed a verdict for the defendant.

We think this direction was right, and the judgment, must be affirmed. There was no contract, either express, or implied, under the testimony given, made by the-defendant, under which he could be held liable for the child's support to the plaintiff; neither could the wife, under the facts stated, make any contract with the husband, Johnson, which would bind Onsted fór the child's support without his consent. Husband v. Husband, 67 Ind. 583; Schouler, Dom. Rel. 322.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Sherwood, C. J.

In this case Ida B. Onsted was divorced from her husband, the defendant, on February 13, 1874, and by the decree she obtained was given the ■care, management, and maintenance of their child, a little girl then about three years old. Ida married the plaintiff in September, 1874 ,who immediately took her and the ■child to his home, and has cared for the child as he would his own ever since, with a full knowledge of the provisions of the decree between his wife and the defendant. It does not appear that in her suit for divorce .Mrs. Onsted either asked for or obtained any order for •cither temporary or permanent alimony. Mr. Onsted [438]*438lives about four miles from the plaintiff. He never demanded the custody of this child; neither has plaintiff ever demanded any pay for keeping her, or ever had any talk or agreement with defendant regarding it, or about, her care or support. Under the foregoing facts the plaintiff brought suit in assumpsit against the defendant for the care, support, and maintenance of defendant's child while she lived in his family. The cause was tried in the Lenawee circuit, before Judge Watts, with a jury. At the close of the testimony the learned circuit judges directed a verdict for the defendant.

We think this direction was right, and the judgment, must be affirmed. There was no contract, either express, or implied, under the testimony given, made by the-defendant, under which he could be held liable for the child's support to the plaintiff; neither could the wife, under the facts stated, make any contract with the husband, Johnson, which would bind Onsted fór the child's support without his consent. Husband v. Husband, 67 Ind. 583; Schouler, Dom. Rel. 322.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.W. 62, 74 Mich. 437, 1889 Mich. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-onsted-mich-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack