Yokubausky v. Yokubausky

Michigan Supreme Court

Yokubausky v. Yokubausky

240 N.W. 73, 256 Mich. 604, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 751

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 4, 1932

DocketDocket No. 90, Calendar No. 35,782.

StatusPublished

This text of 240 N.W. 73 (Yokubausky v. Yokubausky) 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

Yokubausky v. Yokubausky, 240 N.W. 73, 256 Mich. 604, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 751 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

Plaintiff filed a bill for separate maintenance against defendant, who answered and denied all the material allegations of her bill of complaint, and, by way of cross-bill, alleged plaintiff’s improper conduct entitled him to a decree of divorce. The trial court entered a decree in favor of plaintiff, from which defendant appeals. October 1, 1929, defendant herein filed a bill for divorce as plaintiff against the plaintiff herein as defendant. After trial of that case, plaintiff’s bill of complaint was dismissed by the trial court, with costs to defendant. Defendant here contends an absolute divorce should have been granted by the trial court, and that the provisions for plaintiff are grossly unfair, unreasonable, and impossible for defendant to perform. The decree entered by the trial court provided either party could apply for a change or modification of the decree. The case involved disputed questions of fact. A review of the testimony will be of no aid to the profession. We are satisfied from the record the trial court arrived at a correct conclusion. Decree affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Sharpe, North, Dead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Potter, J.

Plaintiff filed a bill for separate maintenance against defendant, who answered and denied all the material allegations of her bill of complaint, and, by way of cross-bill, alleged plaintiff’s improper conduct entitled him to a decree of divorce. The trial court entered a decree in favor of plaintiff, from which defendant appeals. October 1, 1929, defendant herein filed a bill for divorce as plaintiff against the plaintiff herein as defendant. After trial of that case, plaintiff’s bill of complaint was dismissed by the trial court, with costs to defendant. Defendant here contends an absolute divorce should have been granted by the trial court, and that the provisions for plaintiff are grossly unfair, unreasonable, and impossible for defendant to perform. The decree entered by the trial court provided either party could apply for a change or modification of the decree. The case involved disputed questions of fact. A review of the testimony will be of no aid to the profession. We are satisfied from the record the trial court arrived at a correct conclusion. Decree affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Sharpe, North, Dead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 N.W. 73, 256 Mich. 604, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yokubausky-v-yokubausky-mich-1932.