Shafer v. Shafer

30 Mich. 163, 1874 Mich. LEXIS 164
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided October 6, 1874·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

The Court

held that our statute regulating chancery appeals is broad enough to authorize such an appeal in a. cause thus circumstanced; but that before the appeal can be brought to a hearing, or any further proceedings had in the cause, the proper steps must be taken to bring in as parties the representatives of the deceased complainant, and his heirs at law.

Motion denied.

The Court held that, in view of the nature of the proceedings, and of the statute regulating the settlement of estates and the powers and duties of administrators, it was not authorized to require and enforce payment of alimony by the administrator.

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

Shafer v. Shafer, 30 Mich. 163, 1874 Mich. LEXIS 164 (Mich. 1874).

30 Mich. 163 (Shafer v. Shafer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stapleton v. Stapleton
209 So. 2d 202 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1968)
Workman v. Peterson
42 N.W.2d 245 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1950)
Cox v. Dodd
4 So. 2d 736 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1941)
Bailey v. Scott
18 F.2d 184 (D.C. Circuit, 1927)
Gantt v. Brown
149 S.W. 644 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Pingree v. Pingree
135 N.W. 923 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Adams
63 N.E. 125 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Snibley v. Palmtag
59 P. 200 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Carter v. Mutual Life Insurance
10 Haw. 117 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1895)
Seibly v. Person
63 N.W. 528 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1895)