Poxson v. Poxson

Michigan Supreme Court

Poxson v. Poxson

245 N.W. 536, 260 Mich. 625, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1187

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 6, 1932

DocketDocket No. 191, Calendar No. 36,830.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 N.W. 536 (Poxson v. Poxson) 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

Poxson v. Poxson, 245 N.W. 536, 260 Mich. 625, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1187 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiest, J.

Under a decree of divorce, granted plaintiff in January, 1926, defendant was required to pay, as permanent alimony to his wife and for the support of their child, the sum of $125 per *626 month until September 1, 1926, then $150 per month for one year and thereafter $175 per month.

August 1, 1931, defendant moved the circuit court for a modification of the allowance of $175 per month, alleging change in his circumstances as well as in the circumstances of plaintiff. The friend of the court made an investigation and recommended a reduction to $150 per month. The court also heard the proofs of the parties and made the reduction recommended. Defendant reviews' by appeal.

Defendant’s salary as a salesman has been reduced to $348.34 per month. Some time ago defendant went into debt in order to purchase stocks when such were considered good investments, and now has the stocks, of small value, and the obligations, to a considerable amount, to pay for the same. He has remarried. During the plentiful years he faithfully performed the order of the court, but, under the lean years, he wants the burden eased.

Plaintiff, since the divorce, has qualified herself for employment, and, at the time of the hearing, was earning the sum of $130 per month. Plaintiff and the now 12-year old daughter live with her parents, and she insists that the allowance of $150 per month is necessary. The friend of the court made a painstaking investigation, and this was supplemented by such proofs as the parties desired to present in open court. The health of plaintiff is not good, and now and for some time she will require the services of a physician. The health of the child is not good. We are loath to disturb the finding in the circuit court.

Counsel for defendant asserts right, under Court Rule No. 59, § 9 (1931), to have full review of the decree granted in 1926, and to that end has included in the record the testimony then taken.

*627 The rule provides:

“In chancery cases, where more than one decree has been rendered, an appeal from any decree may include a review of any or all prior decrees, at the option of the appellant.”

Clearly this applies only to interlocutory decrees leading up to final decrees, and is intended to avoid piecemeal appeals. Pinal decrees, not appealed from, are not at all disturbed by this rule.

The modification of the decree is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

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

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

Wiest, J.

Under a decree of divorce, granted plaintiff in January, 1926, defendant was required to pay, as permanent alimony to his wife and for the support of their child, the sum of $125 per *626 month until September 1, 1926, then $150 per month for one year and thereafter $175 per month.

August 1, 1931, defendant moved the circuit court for a modification of the allowance of $175 per month, alleging change in his circumstances as well as in the circumstances of plaintiff. The friend of the court made an investigation and recommended a reduction to $150 per month. The court also heard the proofs of the parties and made the reduction recommended. Defendant reviews' by appeal.

Defendant’s salary as a salesman has been reduced to $348.34 per month. Some time ago defendant went into debt in order to purchase stocks when such were considered good investments, and now has the stocks, of small value, and the obligations, to a considerable amount, to pay for the same. He has remarried. During the plentiful years he faithfully performed the order of the court, but, under the lean years, he wants the burden eased.

Plaintiff, since the divorce, has qualified herself for employment, and, at the time of the hearing, was earning the sum of $130 per month. Plaintiff and the now 12-year old daughter live with her parents, and she insists that the allowance of $150 per month is necessary. The friend of the court made a painstaking investigation, and this was supplemented by such proofs as the parties desired to present in open court. The health of plaintiff is not good, and now and for some time she will require the services of a physician. The health of the child is not good. We are loath to disturb the finding in the circuit court.

Counsel for defendant asserts right, under Court Rule No. 59, § 9 (1931), to have full review of the decree granted in 1926, and to that end has included in the record the testimony then taken.

*627 The rule provides:

“In chancery cases, where more than one decree has been rendered, an appeal from any decree may include a review of any or all prior decrees, at the option of the appellant.”

Clearly this applies only to interlocutory decrees leading up to final decrees, and is intended to avoid piecemeal appeals. Pinal decrees, not appealed from, are not at all disturbed by this rule.

The modification of the decree is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 N.W. 536, 260 Mich. 625, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poxson-v-poxson-mich-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack