Peck v. Uhl

33 N.W. 893, 66 Mich. 592, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 527
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided July 7, 1887·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[See ante, 586.]

Third persons cannot be made defendants in a divorce suit, unless ti.ey have conspired with the husband for the transfer to themselves of property subject to the wife’s claim for alimony, with intent to defraud her out of her interest in such property held by reason of her maritial rights in the same. Damon v. Damon, 28 Wis. 510 ; Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige, 866.

Bill for divorce, and to reach property of wife alleged to' have been fraudulently conveyed by defendant Peck to his co-defendant, ITh].

Decree dismissing bill, without prejudice, affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion in Peck v. Peck, ante, 586.

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

Peck v. Uhl, 33 N.W. 893, 66 Mich. 592, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 527 (Mich. 1887).

33 N.W. 893 (Peck v. Uhl) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Yedinak v. Yedinak
175 N.W.2d 706 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1970)
Newton v. Security National Bank
37 N.W.2d 130 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1949)
Maslen v. Anderson
128 N.W. 723 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)