Arrand v. Graham
| Decision Date | 06 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 38.,38. |
| Citation | 300 N.W. 16,297 Mich. 559 |
| Parties | ARRAND et ux. v. GRAHAM. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On Motion for rehearing.
Rehearing denied.
For prior opinion, see 297 Mich. 559,298 N.W. 281.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Saginaw County; William H. Martin, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Clarence J. Brainerd, of Chesaning, for appellees.
Roland O. Kern, of Caro, for appellant.
Thomas G. Long, of Detroit, Amicus Curiae.
On motion for rehearing filed and joined in by both the parties herein, concern is expressed that some language in the opinion may be construed as affecting our decisions in the following cases: Battjes Fuel & Building Material Co. v. Milanowski, 236 Mich. 622, 211 N.W. 27;People's State Bank of Pontiac v. Reckling, 252 Mich. 383, 233 N.W. 353;American State Trust Co. of Detroit v. Rosenthal, 255 Mich. 157, 237 N.W. 534;Bankers' Trust Co. of Detroit v. Humber, 264 Mich. 71, 249 N.W. 454. These cases deal with the right of a husband's creditors to seize rents, income, use, or profits from property held by the entirety. The instant case involves the power of the husband to control the rents, income, use, and profits from property held by entirety, adhering to our decisions in Wuerth v. Wuerth, 270 Mich. 628, 259 N.W. 346;Dombrowski v. Gorecki, 291 Mich. 678, 289 N.W. 293; and other cases to the same effect. The instant case is in consonance with previous decisions and does not overrule. The anomalous character of the respective rights and liabilities of husband and wife in a tenancy by the entirety was again commented upon in the original opinion in the instant case.
Rehearing denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitcham v. City of Detroit
...Com'r of Ins. v. Lapeer Farmers Mut. Fire Ins. Ass'n, 297 Mich. 174, 297 N.W. 232; Arrand v. Graham, 297 Mich. 559, 298 N.W. 281, 300 N.W. 16, 136 A.L.R. 1206. Failure to brief a question on appeal is tantamount to abandoning it. See Wortman v. R. L. Coolseat Construction Co., 305 Mich. 176......
-
Budwit v. Herr
...therein. Way v. Root, supra; Morrill v. Morrill, 138 Mich. 112, 101 N.W. 209; Arrand v. Graham, 297 Mich. 559, 298 N.W. 281, 300 N.W. 16, 136 A.L.R. 1206, 1210; Maynard v. Hawley, 331 Mich. 123, 49 N.W.2d 92. If it were to be conceded, however, despite the fact that in legal contemplation t......
-
Morgan v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
...v. Provin, 25 Mich. 347 (1872); Morrill v. Morrill, 138 Mich. 112, 101 N.W. 209 (1904); Arrand v. Graham, 297 Mich. 559, 298 N.W. 281, 300 N.W. 16 (1941); Schram v. Burt, 111 F.2d 557 (CA 6, 1940).For an excellent comparison of these differing approaches, see Phipps, supra, pp. 28-35, 46-57......
-
McLean v. United States, 23095.
...Burt (CCA 6, 1940), 111 F.2d 557; French v. Foster, 307 Mich. 361, 11 N.W.2d 920; Arrand v. Graham, 297 Mich. 559, 298 N.W. 281, 300 N.W. 16, 136 A.L.R. 1206; Long v. Earle, supra; Hearns v. Hearns, 333 Mich. 423, 53 N.W.2d 315; Schultz v. Silver, 323 Mich. 454, 35 N.W.2d 383. One incident ......