McVey v. McVey

• Decision Date: 09 September 1935
• Docket Number: No. 24.,24.
• Citation: 272 Mich. 341,262 N.W. 264
• Parties: McVEY v. McVEY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

272 Mich. 341

262 N.W. 264

McVEY

v.McVEY.

No. 24.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 9, 1935.

Suit by Donald F. McVey against Florence J. McVey, wherein defendant filed a cross-bill.From a decree denying relief to both parties, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Muskegon County, in Chancery; John Vanderwerp, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Stanley E. Beattie, of Detroit, for appellant.

Cross, Foote & Sessions, of Muskegon, for appellee.

EDWARD M. SHARPE, Justice.

The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1923; as a result of this marriage three children were born, all of whom are now living.In November, 1932, the defendant in the present suit secured a divorce from plaintiff together with custody of the children.The cause of the divorce granted in 1932 was the husband's extreme and repeated cruelty.The parties remarried February 10, 1934, in the city of Detroit, where they remained three days when the plaintiff in the instant case went west owing to the illness of his mother.By agreement they met again in the Stevens Hotel in Chicago on February 24, 1934, where they were joined by friends and all proceeded to celebrate the second marriage, during which time intoxicating liquors were consumed.It would serve no useful purpose to review the evidence of what occurred during their stay at the hotel.On the following Monday, plaintiff and defendant left for Muskegon where they remained until Wednesday when the defendant left for Detroit and never again resumed the marriage relation with plaintiff.

June 1, 1934, plaintiff filed a bill for divorce in Muskegon county.The defendant appeared, answered, and filed a cross-bill in which she seeks absolute divorce, alimony, and custody of the children.The cause was heard September 14, 1934, and on October 6, 1934, the trial judge filed an opinion denying relief to both parties, from which order defendant appeals.

We have examined the record carefully, and in our opinion agree with the trial judge in his statement that the proofs submitted are of such a character that neither party is entitled to a divorce.

In Kellogg v. Kellogg, 171 Mich. 518, 137 N. W. 249, 250, we said: ‘Divorce is a remedy for the innocent and injured, and the complainant who has himself broken the marriage contract cannot well ask to be relieved from its obligations because his spouse may also have broken it.The law is for the assistance of those who obey it, and not for those who violate it,...