Meer v. Meer

Decision Date22 July 1926
Docket NumberNo. 45.,45.
Citation236 Mich. 20,209 N.W. 836
PartiesMEER v. MEER.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Joseph H. Collins, Judge.

Action by Anna Meer against Isidore Meer, in which defendant filed a cross-bill. From the decree, defendant appealed, but did not perfect his appeal, and plaintiff took crossappeal. Decree for plaintiff as directed.

Argued before BIRD, C. J., and SHARPE, SNOW, STEERE, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ.C. H. and G. M. Lehman, of Detroit, for plaintiff.

John F. Jordan, of Detroit, for defendant.

SHARPE, J.

On June 18, 1925, Judge Collins of the Thirty-Fifth circuit, sitting in the Wayne circuit, granted plaintiff a decree of absolute divorce from the defendant on the ground of nonsupport, and dismissed defendant's cross-bill, in which extreme cruelty on the part of plaintiff was charged. He decreed that the interest of the parties in a land contract in which they were both named as vendees should be sold and the proceeds divided equally between them, unless they could agree upon a disposition of their respective interests therein, and that plaintiff should have her taxable costs, and that the amount thereof should be chargeable against defendant's one-half interest in such contract.

On July 1st the defendant filed a claim of appeal. On July 7th plaintiff filed a similar claim. The defendant took no steps to perfect his appeal. Plaintiff gave notice of the settlement of the case before Judge Collins at his courtroom in Corunna on March 13, 1926, and the case was settled and the certificate thereto signed by him at that time and place. Defendant moves to strike the printed record from the files for the reason that the judge had no jurisdiction to act in the matter outside the county of Wayne. The motion must be denied. Hill v. Hill, 112 Mich. 633, 71 N. W. 144.

We therefore proceed to consider the question presented on plaintiff's appeal. It is her claim that the decree is inequitable in the division of the property rights.

The parties were married in 1917, and separated in 1923. They had no children. Defendant was engaged in the dental supply business, and plaintiff, besides attending to her housework (she kept no maid), assisted him in his work at such times as her duties would permit. He sold this business, and engaged in other ventures which proved unprofitable. A home had been purchased in 1920 on a land contract for $9,500, on which $2,500 had been paid. The money with which their furniture was purchased was given plaintiff by the defendant and by her parents at the time of the marriage as wedding gifts.

After the commencement of her suit, and on March 1, 1924, plaintiff secured an order that defendant pay her the sum of $15 per week for her support. This order authorized him to collect the rentals on the house, which had been vacated by them, and required him to apply...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT