North v. North
| Decision Date | 18 June 1878 |
| Citation | 39 Mich. 67 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | John D. North v. Adaline North |
Appeal from Jackson.
Divorce. Complainant appeals from an order decreeing him guilty of contempt.
Order reversed.
Jno. D Conely for complainant appellant. A decree for the maintenance of children after the divorce of their parents is enforced under Comp. L., § 4759 and is governed by Perkins v. Perkins, 16 Mich. 167.
Austin Blair for defendant. An order for the support of children after the divorce of their parents is authorized by Comp. L §§ 4747, 4749, 4759, 4760; Chandler v Chandler, 24 Mich. 176; and commitment for contempt is the proper remedy for refusing to pay the amount ordered, Steller v. Steller, 25 Mich. 159.
December 20, 1873, these parties were divorced from the bonds of matrimony by decree of the court below, and about two months later the decree was enrolled. It has never been opened or impaired.
The parties had two young children, but the decree made no provision for their custody or support. Neither did it make any allowance whatever. Complainant afterwards married.
About a year after the decree, proceedings on the foot of it were allowed on the application of defendant concerning the custody and support of the children, and May 18, 1876, the court referred the investigation to a special commissioner and ordered complainant to pay $ 3 per week to support the children during the inquiry. Complainant failing to comply, he was proceeded against for contempt and on the 29th of September, 1877, the court adjudged him guilty and ordered that he should pay defendant in fifteen days the sum of $ 213, being the amount which had accrued under the order of May 18th, and further ordered that in case of his failure to make such payment he be committed to jail.
The case comes up on appeal from this order.
We think in entertaining the proceeding by attachment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Going v. Going
... ... Allen (1887) 72 Iowa, 502, 34 N.W. 303 (temporary ... alimony); Baily v. Baily (1886) 69 Iowa, 77, 28 N.W ... 443 (temporary alimony); North v. North (1878) 39 ... Mich. 67 ... But ... these holdings are exceptional, the majority of the state ... courts holding that ... ...
-
Cain v. Miller
...executions. Unless they can be enforced in some other way, they may be practically defeated." Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 138. See North v. North, 39 Mich. 67; Carnahan v. Carnahan, 143 Mich. 390, 107 N.W. 73. The same rule is followed in Connecticut, Lyon v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 185; and in Iowa ......
-
Clark v. Clark
...Leeder v. State, 55 Neb. 133, 75 N.W. 541; Allen v. Allen, 72 Iowa, 502, 34 N.W. 303; Baily v. Baily, 69 Iowa, 77, 28 N.W. 443; North v. North, 39 Mich. 67. citing the above cases, the court further said: "But these holdings are exceptional, the majority of the state courts holding that the......
-
Weinstein v. Heimberg
...Allen (1887), 72 Iowa 502, 34 N.W. 303 (temporary alimony); Baily v. Baily (1886) 69 Iowa 77, 28 N.W. 443 (temporary alimony); North v. North (1878), 39 Mich. 67.' However, it is pointed out that, in a majority of the States, alimony as such, is not regarded as a mere debt and where the dec......