Glick v. Glick

• Decision Date: 21 July 1896
• Citation: 68 N.W. 153,110 Mich. 304
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GLICK v. GLICK ET AL.

68 N.W. 153

110 Mich. 304

GLICK v. GLICK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 21, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Ionia county, in chancery; Sherman B Daboll, Judge.

Suit by Mary L. Glick against Albert Glick and another. There was a decree for complainant, and defendant Jacob Glick appeals. Affirmed.

John Nichol and F. H. Stowe, for appellant.

Charles L. Wilson, for appellee.

LONG C.J.

This bill was filed April 11, 1894, to foreclose a lien decreed in divorce proceedings between complainant and defendant Albert Glick. The lien was declared December 30, 1893, principally to secure payment of alimony for the maintenance of an infant child of the parties, about four years of age. The decree required Albert to pay to complainant the sum of $20 every three months, for the support, care, and education of the child, until it arrived at the age of 12 years, giving its custody to the complainant. The lien covers 60 acres of land held by said Albert under land contract from Sanford A Yeomans, dated July 27, 1891, duly recorded the purchase price being $600, upon which there was paid down $75, and interest to September 1, 1891. The residue was made payable $50 September 1, 1893, and $50 each year thereafter until fully paid, with interest at 7 per cent. annually. The divorce suit was commenced November 7, 1892, and personal service of process was made. Lis pendens was filed in the suit September 18, 1893, giving notice of complainant's claim for alimony, and her interest in the premises. Injunction was also issued the same day, and served the next on Jacob Glick. It was directed to said Albert, and to said Jacob as agent and trustee of said Albert, their solicitors etc., restraining them from assigning or otherwise transferring said land contract, or from selling or conveying said land, etc., and therein reciting the complainant's claim for alimony and interest in said land. The bill of foreclosure, aside from ordinary allegations, sets forth that the defendants were conspiring and combining together to injure complainant and prevent her from recovering said alimony, by said Jacob's entering into possession of said Albert's personal property, and by cutting down and converting the growing timber, thereby lessening the value of the premises, alleged to be a scant security. The bill also alleges that Albert had so far performed on his part of said contract, and had paid $125 of principal, besides interest then due, and prays that, in case complainant should pay any portion of said purchase price to protect her interest, the same may be included in her decree. It also prays for subp na, and injunction to stay waste, and for general relief. Appearance in this suit was duly entered for both defendants by same counsel. They answered only for Jacob, and allowed the bill to be taken as confessed as to Albert. The answer of Jacob, filed August 7, 1894, admits the decree of divorce and for alimony, and the lien on...