Perkins v. Perkins

10 Mich. 425, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 74
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided July 21, 1862·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Martin Ch. J.:

The order in this case is interlocutory, and from it no appeal lies. See Enos v. Sutherland, 9 Mich. 148; Ballard v. Green, Ibid. 222. The decree of alimony vests in the wife no absolute right to the allowance, as it may be changed from time to time, and reduced or enlarged in the discretion of the Court:— Comp. L. § 3249; Rogers v. Vines, 6 Ired. 293; Wheeler v. Wheeler, 18 Ill. 39; Sheafe v. Laighton, 36 N. H. 240; Miller v. Miller, 6 Johns. Ch. 91. Whether the decree would be changed or modified depends upon the action of-the Court upon the coming in of the Commissioner’s report; and until some final action upon the report, no appeal lies.

The appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Perkins v. Perkins, 10 Mich. 425, 1862 Mich. LEXIS 74 (Mich. 1862).

10 Mich. 425 (Perkins v. Perkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pohl v. Pohl
164 N.W.2d 768 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1968)
Chipman v. Chipman
14 N.W.2d 502 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1944)
Wellman v. Wellman
9 N.W.2d 579 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1943)
Langdell v. Langdell
280 N.W. 758 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Welles v. Brown
198 N.W. 180 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1924)
Wells v. Wells
95 N.E. 845 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Nixon v. Wright
109 N.W. 274 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)
Jordan v. Westerman
28 N.W. 826 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)
Maxfield v. Freeman
39 Mich. 64 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
Kingsbury v. Kingsbury
20 Mich. 212 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1870)