Miller v. Miller

Michigan Supreme Court

Miller v. Miller

253 Mich. 463

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1931

DocketDocket No. 108, Calendar No. 35,250

StatusPublished

This text of 253 Mich. 463 (Miller v. Miller) 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

Miller v. Miller, 253 Mich. 463 (Mich. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

North, J.

By his bill of complaint plaintiff seeks a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the ground of desertion. The decree denied the relief sought. Plaintiff has appealed.

A complaining party is not entitled to a decree of divorce for desertion unless he establishes by competent proof (1) cessation of cohabitation, (2) abandonment by his spouse without fault on complainant’s part, and (3) that the abandonment or separation was against the will and desire of the party seeking the decree.

The circuit judge found: “That the said defendant did not desert the said plaintiff but that said parties separated pursuant to an agreement entered into between them,” etc. We have reviewed the record carefully. It abundantly sustains the above finding. The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

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

North, J.

By his bill of complaint plaintiff seeks a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the ground of desertion. The decree denied the relief sought. Plaintiff has appealed.

A complaining party is not entitled to a decree of divorce for desertion unless he establishes by competent proof (1) cessation of cohabitation, (2) abandonment by his spouse without fault on complainant’s part, and (3) that the abandonment or separation was against the will and desire of the party seeking the decree.

The circuit judge found: “That the said defendant did not desert the said plaintiff but that said parties separated pursuant to an agreement entered into between them,” etc. We have reviewed the record carefully. It abundantly sustains the above finding. The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 Mich. 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-miller-mich-1931.