Colburn v. Colburn

• Decision Date: 15 June 1888
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: COLBURN v. COLBURN.

38 N.W. 607

70 Mich. 647

COLBURN v. COLBURN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 15, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Van Buren county, in chancery; ALFRED J MILLS, Judge.

MORSE J.

The complainant filed his bill for divorce from his wife on the 4th day of August, 1885, in the circuit court for the county of Van Buren, in chancery, alleging desertion by his wife commencing on the 1st day of November, 1882, and continuing up to the time of the filing of said bill. The bill contained all the proper and necessary allegations, and was regularly taken as confessed, upon proof of publication; the defendant being a resident of the state of New York. Testimony was taken by deposition, and the complainant was also examined by the court upon its own motion and order. The circuit judge dismissed the bill upon the following grounds, as stated in his decree: That the complainant was not a permanent resident of the state; and that he came here mainly for the purpose of obtaining a decree of divorce, and not to become a bona fide resident; and that, at the time of filing his bill, he had not resided in this state for a period of two years; and that the desertion of the defendant, alleged in said bill of complaint, had not continued in this state two years at that time.

We think this decree of the court below erroneous upon all the grounds stated. A clear case of aggravated desertion was made out by the proofs. It was not necessary that the desertion should have continued two years in this state, or that complainant should have resided here two years before the filing of the bill of complaint. The desertion took place in Allegany county, N. Y., in the month of November, 1882, and continued until the filing of the bill. The wife resided in the state of New York all of the time. The complainant came to Michigan on the 29th day of July, 1884; and, if he came here with the good-faith intent of becoming a resident, it was only necessary, under the law as it existed at the time of the filing of the bill and the entering of the decree that he should have resided here one year before the filing of the bill. The complainant testified that he came here with the intention of permanently residing in this state; that his main purpose, in choosing Michigan as a home was to procure a divorce from his wife, as desertion was not a cause for divorce in New York. He left no property in New York, and has none here except what he has...