Rood v. Rood

Michigan Supreme Court

Rood v. Rood

280 Mich. 33

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 21, 1937

DocketDocket No. 164, Calendar No. 39,354

StatusPublished

This text of 280 Mich. 33 (Rood v. Rood) 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

Rood v. Rood, 280 Mich. 33 (Mich. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

September 26, 1934, plaintiff was granted a decree of divorce against defendant upon the ground of extreme cruelty and nonsupport. After this decree was rendered, defendant remarried. At the time the decree was awarded, plaintiff had been afflicted with tuberculosis. This condition has recurred and plaintiff has been treated in Trudeau sanatorium and has been advised she ought to go to Tucson, Arizona. She made application for an increase in alimony. Defendant filed a cross-petition asking for reduction in alimony. The trial [34]*34court increased the.award of alimony from $75 a month to $100 a month.

We see no reason for changing the award, which is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Fead, C. J., and North, Wiest, Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, and Chandler, JJ., concurred.

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

Potter, J.

September 26, 1934, plaintiff was granted a decree of divorce against defendant upon the ground of extreme cruelty and nonsupport. After this decree was rendered, defendant remarried. At the time the decree was awarded, plaintiff had been afflicted with tuberculosis. This condition has recurred and plaintiff has been treated in Trudeau sanatorium and has been advised she ought to go to Tucson, Arizona. She made application for an increase in alimony. Defendant filed a cross-petition asking for reduction in alimony. The trial [34]*34court increased the.award of alimony from $75 a month to $100 a month.

We see no reason for changing the award, which is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Fead, C. J., and North, Wiest, Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, and Chandler, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 Mich. 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rood-v-rood-mich-1937.