Morrill v. Morrill

• Decision Date: 09 November 1904
• Citation: 101 N.W. 209,138 Mich. 112
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MORRILL v. MORRILL.

101 N.W. 209

138 Mich. 112

MORRILL v. MORRILL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 9, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Van Buren County, in Chancery; John R Carr, Chancellor.

Suit by Frank E. Morrill against Cora Morrill. From a decree for defendant, complainant appeals. Reversed.

Thos J. Cavanaugh and L. A. Tabor, for appellant.

W. G Howard and A. Lynn Free, for appellee.

CARPENTER J.

The parties to this suit are husband and wife. They were married about 13 years ago. In December, 1901, they separated, and shortly afterward defendant filed a bill for divorce, which upon a hearing, was dismissed. They own 80 acres of land as tenants by the entirety, upon which, in 1903, complainant had a crop of grapes. Defendant undertook to harvest this crop. Complainant filed this bill to enjoin such action. Defendant filed a cross-bill averring that she contributed the money for the purchase of this property under a verbal agreement that, while the title should be taken as it was, she should have an 'equal share in the profits arising from said premises.' Upon this ground, as well as upon the ground that she had a similar right as a tenant by the entirety, she prayed for an accounting, and that the property be placed in the hands of a receiver. The controversy was heard by the lower court, and the prayer of this cross-bill granted.

Two questions are raised by this appeal: First. Has the wife a right to a share of the crops growing on lands held by her and her husband as tenants by the entirety? If the wife has a right to compel her husband to account for a share of the crops on land held by entireties when they are living separate, as in this case, she cannot be denied that right when they are living together. If she has such a right, it becomes important to determine where she obtained it. The common law certainly gave her no such right; for, according to its principles, the exclusive right to dispose of the crops and use the proceeds as he saw fit belonged to the husband. See Pray v. Stebbins, 141 Mass. 219, 4 N.E 824, 55 Am. Rep. 462; Buttlar v. Rosenblath, 42 N. J. Eq. 651, 9 A. 695, 59 Am. Rep. 52; Bertles v. Nunan, 92 N.Y. 152, 44 Am. Rep. 361. It follows therefore, that if the wife has that right now she obtained it as the result of some statute of this state. The only statute which it can be claimed has any bearing on this subject is our married woman's act. Section 8690, Comp. Laws 1897. I think it must be conceded that the decisions of this court have determined that this statute has no application to estates by entirety. See Fisher v. Provin, 25 Mich. 347; Vinton v. Beamer, 55 Mich. 559, 22 N.W. 40; Speier v. Opfer, 73 Mich. 35, 40 N.W. 909, 2 L. R. A. 345, 16 Am. St. Rep. 556; Naylor v. Minock, 96 Mich. 182, 55 N.W. 664, 35 Am. St. Rep. 595; Dickey v. Converse, 117 Mich. 449, 76 N.W. 80, 72 Am. St. Rep. 568; Doane v. Feather's Estate, 119 Mich. 691, 78 N.W. 884. I think it unnecessary to determine whether the husband's exclusive control of these crops is an incident of estates by entirety, or whether, as held in Hiles v. Fisher, 144 N.Y. 306, 39 N.E. 337, 30 L. R. A. 305, 43 Am. St. Rep. 762, and Buttlar v. Rosenblath, supra, it is a result of the marital unity. If it is an incident of estates by entirety, then since, under our decisions, estates by entirety remain as at common law, that right continues to belong to the husband. If it is a result of the marital unity, the same conclusion must be reached, because we have held--as we were bound to hold--that the statute does not affect the marital unity. See Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. 106, 12 Am. Rep. 302. And accordingly we have--as we were bound to do--rejected the authority of Hiles v. Fisher and Buttlar v. Rosenblath, supra. See Dickey v. Converse, supra. We are compelled to conclude from this reasoning that as a tenant by the entirety the wife has no such interest in the crops as to justify the decree complained of. It is contended, however, that the decision of this court in Dickey v. Converse, 117 Mich. 449, 76 N.W. 80, 72 Am. St. Rep. 568, justifies the decree. In that case it was held that no interest in growing crops upon land held by husband and wife as tenants by the entirety was subject to seizure on an execution issued to collect a judgment against the husband; that the levy could not be supported either upon the ground that the husband owned the entire crops or on the ground that as a tenant in common he owned an interest of one-half therein which was subject to seizure. This decision proceeded upon the ground that estates by entirety at the common law continued to exist in this state, and that the 'crop raised on land held by husband and wife by entireties is held by them in the same manner...