Gould v. Gould
| Decision Date | 05 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 95.,95. |
| Citation | 226 Mich. 340,197 N.W. 505 |
| Parties | GOULD v. GOULD. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County, in Chancery; Walter H. North, Judge.
Divorce suit by Orvie H. Gould against Maude Gould. Decree for plaintiff, and from an order modifying the alimony provision plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded without prejudice.
Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Roy M. Ludlum, of Battle Creek, for appellant.
Maxwell B. Allen, of Battle Creek, for appellee.
A decree for divorce, entered January 17, 1920, gave the custody of children to defendant, the mother, and required plaintiff, the father, to contribute toward their support. Defendant on August 31, 1922, petitioned that the decree be modified by increasing the amount so to be contributed. 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 11417. The petition was granted. Plaintiff has appealed.
No new facts or change in condition of the parties arising since the decree to justify its modifications are shown. It is well settled that in the absence of such showing the decree may not be so modified. Smith v. Smith, 139 Mich. 133, 102 N. W. 631;Quinn v. Quinn (Mich.) 197 N. W. 504.
Judge North's opinion indicates that he found no new facts, but that he thought the original decree inequitable. But it is also settled that this proceeding is ‘not a rehearing of the original case, or a review of the equities of the original decree.’ Sherman v. Kent, 223 Mich. 200, 193 N. W. 795.
The order is reversed, without prejudice and without costs. The cause is remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romanowski v. Romanowski
...there must be an alteration of circumstances to warrant a modification. See Snyder v. Snyder, 219 Cal. 80, 25 P.2d 403;Gould v. Gould, 226 Mich. 340, 197 N.W. 505;Williams v. Williams, 127 Miss. 627, 90 So. 330. While it can be argued with a great deal of force that a trial court should be ......
-
Binkow v. Binkow
...208 Mich. 34, 175 N.W. 168;Sherman v. Kent, 223 Mich. 200, 193 N.W. 795;Quinn v. Quinn, 226 Mich. 239, 197 N.W. 504; Gould v. Gould, 226 Mich. 340, 197 N.W. 505;Schweim v. Schweim, 233 Mich. 67, 206 N.W. 353;Tuthill v. Tuthill, 259 Mich. 272, 243 N.W. 1;Hill v. Hill, 266 Mich. 402, 254 N.W.......
-
Chipman v. Chipman, 7.
...the condition of the parties arising since the decree to justify the modification of a decree for maintenance of children. Gould v. Gould, 226 Mich. 340, 197 N.W. 505. And where alimony is due and unpaid, the court may modify the decree as to the accrued amount. Nixon v. Wright, 146 Mich. 2......
-
Sims v. Sims
...the question of modification. Sherman v. Kent, 223 Mich. 200, 193 N.W. 795;Quinn v. Quinn, 226 Mich. 239, 197 N.W. 504;Gould v. Gould, 226 Mich. 340, 197 N.W. 505;Schweim v. Schweim, 233 Mich. 67, 206 N.W. 353.’ We recognize the trial court has broad discretion as regards the amendment of d......