Karreman v. Karreman

Michigan Supreme Court

Karreman v. Karreman

81 N.W. 576, 122 Mich. 654, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 630

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 23, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 81 N.W. 576 (Karreman v. Karreman) 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

Karreman v. Karreman, 81 N.W. 576, 122 Mich. 654, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 630 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Moore, J.

A bill for divorce was filed by complainant in this cause, charging extreme cruelty on the part of the defendant. The testimony was taken in open court, and decree rendered by the circuit judge in accordance with the prayer of the bill. The questions involved are purely questions of fact, the discussion of which would not profit any one. The trial court saw the witnesses. The decree is justified by the evidence, under the rulings of this court in the following cases: Warner v. Warner, 54 Mich. 492; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 56 Mich. 50; Whitmore v. Whitmore, 49 Mich. 417; Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 34; Whitacre v. Whitacre, 64 Mich. 232; Cooper v. Cooper, 78 Mich. 316; Be Zwaan v. Be Zwaan, 91 Mich. 279; Nicholas v. Nicholas, 50 Mich. 162; Kirkland v. Kirkland, 111 Mich. 166; Bailey v. Bailey, 121 Mich. 236.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Moore, J.

A bill for divorce was filed by complainant in this cause, charging extreme cruelty on the part of the defendant. The testimony was taken in open court, and decree rendered by the circuit judge in accordance with the prayer of the bill. The questions involved are purely questions of fact, the discussion of which would not profit any one. The trial court saw the witnesses. The decree is justified by the evidence, under the rulings of this court in the following cases: Warner v. Warner, 54 Mich. 492; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 56 Mich. 50; Whitmore v. Whitmore, 49 Mich. 417; Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 34; Whitacre v. Whitacre, 64 Mich. 232; Cooper v. Cooper, 78 Mich. 316; Be Zwaan v. Be Zwaan, 91 Mich. 279; Nicholas v. Nicholas, 50 Mich. 162; Kirkland v. Kirkland, 111 Mich. 166; Bailey v. Bailey, 121 Mich. 236.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 N.W. 576, 122 Mich. 654, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karreman-v-karreman-mich-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack