Day v. Chamberlain
| Decision Date | 04 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 42.,42. |
| Parties | DAY v. CHAMBERLAIN et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court Ottawa County, in Chancery; Orien S. Cross, Judge.
Bill by Lillian R. Green Day, individually and as administrator of the estate of Harry B. Green, deceased, against Frank L. Chamberlain and another. From a decree dismissing the bill after hearing, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.Smedley, Linsey & Shivel, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Corwin & Norcross, of Grand Rapids, for appellees.
Lillian R. Green and Harry B. Green, husband and wife, and their son Marian, about 9 years of age, lived in Grand Rapids. On July 22, 1919, a separation agreement was made. The agreement:
‘Whereas, said parties are husband and wife and cannot live happily together, and therefore, they agree to separate and live apart and in consideration of the wife taking care of herself and buying her own clothes and paying her own board, the said husband agrees to give her two thousand ($2,000) dollars, on the execution and delivery of this agreement.
‘The said husband agrees that if his wife is not married at the time of his death, that after the payment of his debts, she is to have all of his estate, to use as she sees fit as long as she shall remain his widow, and if she remarries then his estate shall go to his son, Marian, and the said husband agrees to make a will at the time of the execution and delivery of this contract, containing a statement to that effect, and at the time of the execution of this instrument, the said wife agrees to make a will in which she is to provide that when she dies, all of her property shall go to their son, Marian B. Green, and the will of the husband shall contain a like clause.
‘In witness whereof the parties have hereto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.
Wills were made on that day as contemplated by the agreement. Mr. Green was in poor health. The husband...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kull v. Losch, 81
...recognized that such a contract made while the spouses are living together, to effectuate a future separation, is void. Day v. Chamberlain, 223 Mich. 278, 193 N.W. 824. In the case cited the decision was based on the fact that there was no existing separation, and that the parties lived and......
-
Miller v. Radikopf
...... In this the court was correct. Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632, 43 N.W. 1102, 6 L.R.A. 457; Cashin v. Pliter, 168 Mich. 386, 134 N.W. 482 (Ann.Cas.1913C, 697); Mulliken v. Naph-Sol Refining Co., 302 Mich. 410, 4 N.W.2d 707; Day v. Chamberlain, 223 Mich. 278, 193 N.W. 824; Dettloff v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 195 Mich. 117, 161 N.W. 949 (14 N.C.C.A. 901); Turner v. Schmidt Brewing Co., 278 Mich. 464, 270 N.W. 205.'. 3 Plaintiff argues that the Irish Sweepstakes is one of the ......
-
Skaates v. Kayser
...Id. at 113-114, 132 N.W.2d 150.On appeal to the Supreme Court, the wife argued that the agreement was void under Day v. Chamberlain , 223 Mich. 278, 193 N.W. 824 (1923). Ransford , 374 Mich. at 114, 132 N.W.2d 150 (opinion by KELLY , J., for affirmance). Four justices of the Court concluded......
-
Wright v. Wright
...may not enter into an enforceable contract that anticipates and encourages a future separation or divorce. Day v. Chamberlain, 223 Mich. 278, 193 N.W. 824 (1923). As our Supreme Court stated in Randall v. Randall, 37 Mich. 563, 571 (1877): "It is not the policy of the law to encourage such ......