Kirkland v. Kirkland

Michigan Supreme Court

Kirkland v. Kirkland

69 N.W. 233, 111 Mich. 166, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 573

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 18, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 69 N.W. 233 (Kirkland v. Kirkland) 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

Kirkland v. Kirkland, 69 N.W. 233, 111 Mich. 166, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 573 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

This is a proceeding for divorce. The complainant filed her bill of complaint, alleging that defendant neglected and refused to provide suitable food for the family, neglected to provide and furnish sufficient help in the house, and exacted of complainant that she perform more labor than she, in her delicate state of health, was able to perform; that for years he habitually used insolent and abusive language towards complainant; that he was habitually profane, and that he accused her of stealing from him. These charges were denied. The case proceeded to hearing upon testimony taken in open court. The circuit judge granted the relief prayed, and awarded alimony in the amount of $&,500 out of the per[167]*167sonalty of defendant, and the further sum of $2,000, conditioned upon complainant’s releasing her right of dower in the lands of defendant. Defendant appeals.

The case is not altogether clear, but, in view of the presumption favoring the conclusion of the circuit judge on a question of fact, where the testimony is so nearly balanced, and where he has had the opportunity of noting the appearance of witnesses on the stand, which-is denied us on appeal, we have, after some hesitancy, determined that we should treat the complainant’s case as made out by the proofs.

Upon the question of alimony, we feel well satisfied that the circuit judge did not exceed a proper and reasonable allowance to the complainant, under the circumstances. There was awarded to the complainant the custody and education of the daughter, and the allowance was conditioned that the defendant should not be liable to the complainant for any support she may furnish to the daughter.

The decree will be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Montgomery, J.

This is a proceeding for divorce. The complainant filed her bill of complaint, alleging that defendant neglected and refused to provide suitable food for the family, neglected to provide and furnish sufficient help in the house, and exacted of complainant that she perform more labor than she, in her delicate state of health, was able to perform; that for years he habitually used insolent and abusive language towards complainant; that he was habitually profane, and that he accused her of stealing from him. These charges were denied. The case proceeded to hearing upon testimony taken in open court. The circuit judge granted the relief prayed, and awarded alimony in the amount of $&,500 out of the per[167]*167sonalty of defendant, and the further sum of $2,000, conditioned upon complainant’s releasing her right of dower in the lands of defendant. Defendant appeals.

The case is not altogether clear, but, in view of the presumption favoring the conclusion of the circuit judge on a question of fact, where the testimony is so nearly balanced, and where he has had the opportunity of noting the appearance of witnesses on the stand, which-is denied us on appeal, we have, after some hesitancy, determined that we should treat the complainant’s case as made out by the proofs.

Upon the question of alimony, we feel well satisfied that the circuit judge did not exceed a proper and reasonable allowance to the complainant, under the circumstances. There was awarded to the complainant the custody and education of the daughter, and the allowance was conditioned that the defendant should not be liable to the complainant for any support she may furnish to the daughter.

The decree will be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.W. 233, 111 Mich. 166, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirkland-v-kirkland-mich-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack