Hoff v. Hoff

• Decision Date: 25 April 1882
• Citation: 12 N.W. 160,48 Mich. 281
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HOFF v. HOFF.

12 N.W. 160

48 Mich. 281

HOFF v. HOFF.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 25, 1882

On bill and cross-bill seeking divorce, if it is found that both parties are guilty of conduct which constitutes a statutory cause for divorce, both bills should be dismissed.

When on bill and cross-bill the circuit judge found both cases made out, and awarded a divorce to both parties, and one party only appealed, held that as the divorce in favor of the party appealing could not now be disturbed, the other ought not to be if it was supported by such evidence as would have warranted it in the absence of recrimination.

Award of alimony changed on the special facts.

Appeal from Van Buren.

E.R Annable, for complainant.

Mills &amp Crane, for defendant and appellant.

COOLEY J.

Complainant filed his bill for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony for the cause of extreme cruelty. The defendant, with an answer denying the cruelty, filed a cross-bill charging the husband with extreme cruelty, and praying a divorce therefor. The circuit judge found both cases made out; awarded a divorce on each bill, and gave the wife $800 for alimony. The wife has appealed. When the circuit judge reached the conclusion that each party had been guilty of such conduct as under the statute was cause for divorce, he should have dismissed both bills and left the parties where their misbehavior had placed them. A proper administration of justice does not require that courts shall occupy their time and the time of people who are so unfortunate as to be witnesses to the misdoings of others in giving equitable relief to parties who have no equities. And it is as true of divorce cases as of any others that a party must come into a court of equity with clean hands. Divorce laws are made to give relief to the innocent not to the guilty.

But as the case now presents itself in this court we cannot do with it what the circuit judge might and should have done. The wife alone has appealed, and according to the settled practice of the court we cannot, without appeal by the husband, modify the decree to her prejudice. Proctor v Robinson, 35 Mich. 284; Match v. Hunt, 38 Mich. 1; Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457. The decree awarding her a divorce on her cross-bill must therefore stand, and the allowance for alimony must also stand to the extent made below.

What we can consider is, whether the husband's divorce on the original bill shall stand also. A...