Nixon v. Wright

Michigan Supreme Court

Nixon v. Wright

109 N.W. 274, 146 Mich. 231, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 890

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 29, 1906

DocketDocket No. 26

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 109 N.W. 274 (Nixon v. Wright) 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

Nixon v. Wright, 109 N.W. 274, 146 Mich. 231, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 890 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, J.

The complainant’s decree for divorce, made on December 30, 1895, contained a provision in her favor for $500, payable on or before October 1,1896. In December, 1905, an action at law was brought upon this decree. The defendant’s counsel demurred to the declaration upon the ground that an action at law cannot be maintained upon a decree for permanent' .alimony. The learned circuit judge overruled the demurrer, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which defendant has appealed.

If it be conceded that an action at law will lie upon any decree in equity, which is for an ascertained and specific amount, and nothing more, it need not follow that an action will lie upon a decree for alimony, where, as in this State, the decree is subject to modification by the court which made it, at any time. See 3 Comp. Laws, §

[232]*2328641. See Jordan v. Westerman, 62 Mich. 170; Perkins v. Perkins, 10 Mich. 425, and cases cited; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 115 Mich. 378; Moross v. Moross, 129 Mich. 27; Smith v. Smith, 139 Mich. 133; Creyts v. Creyts, 143 Mich. 375; Cole v. Cole, 144 Mich. 346. By the statute cited the legislature has given to the court of chancery the power to conserve the interests of the parties to divorce cases, by altering decrees regarding the wife’s support. A decree for alimony is not such an unalterable, definite, and fixed judgment for money—a debt—as will make an adjudication in bankruptcy a discharge. Many courts hold that it is not such an one as may be assigned. ¹ It would be anomalous to sustain the authority of a court of law to deprive the court of chancery of the opportunity of executing its statutory power, or, on the other hand, to sustain a jurisdiction of a court of law, in cases where its judgment would be practically nullified by subsequent orders of a court of equity, in a collateral proceeding. The weight of authority denies the jurisdiction asserted in this case. See opinion of Kent, C. J., in Post v. Neafie, 3 Caines (N. Y.), 34; Allen v. Allen, 100 Mass. 373; Knapp v. Knapp, 134 Mass. 353; Barber v. Barber, 2 Pin. (Wis.) 297; Barber v. Barber, 21 How. (U. S.) 582; Kempster v. Evans, 81 Wis. 247 (15 L. R. A. 391), and cases cited.

The judgment is reversed, with costs of both courts. There is no occasion for a new trial.

Grant, Blair, Montgomery, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred.

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

Hooker, J.

The complainant’s decree for divorce, made on December 30, 1895, contained a provision in her favor for $500, payable on or before October 1,1896. In December, 1905, an action at law was brought upon this decree. The defendant’s counsel demurred to the declaration upon the ground that an action at law cannot be maintained upon a decree for permanent' .alimony. The learned circuit judge overruled the demurrer, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which defendant has appealed.

If it be conceded that an action at law will lie upon any decree in equity, which is for an ascertained and specific amount, and nothing more, it need not follow that an action will lie upon a decree for alimony, where, as in this State, the decree is subject to modification by the court which made it, at any time. See 3 Comp. Laws, §

[232]*2328641. See Jordan v. Westerman, 62 Mich. 170; Perkins v. Perkins, 10 Mich. 425, and cases cited; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 115 Mich. 378; Moross v. Moross, 129 Mich. 27; Smith v. Smith, 139 Mich. 133; Creyts v. Creyts, 143 Mich. 375; Cole v. Cole, 144 Mich. 346. By the statute cited the legislature has given to the court of chancery the power to conserve the interests of the parties to divorce cases, by altering decrees regarding the wife’s support. A decree for alimony is not such an unalterable, definite, and fixed judgment for money—a debt—as will make an adjudication in bankruptcy a discharge. Many courts hold that it is not such an one as may be assigned. ¹ It would be anomalous to sustain the authority of a court of law to deprive the court of chancery of the opportunity of executing its statutory power, or, on the other hand, to sustain a jurisdiction of a court of law, in cases where its judgment would be practically nullified by subsequent orders of a court of equity, in a collateral proceeding. The weight of authority denies the jurisdiction asserted in this case. See opinion of Kent, C. J., in Post v. Neafie, 3 Caines (N. Y.), 34; Allen v. Allen, 100 Mass. 373; Knapp v. Knapp, 134 Mass. 353; Barber v. Barber, 2 Pin. (Wis.) 297; Barber v. Barber, 21 How. (U. S.) 582; Kempster v. Evans, 81 Wis. 247 (15 L. R. A. 391), and cases cited.

The judgment is reversed, with costs of both courts. There is no occasion for a new trial.

Grant, Blair, Montgomery, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 N.W. 274, 146 Mich. 231, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-wright-mich-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack