Parker v. Barkenowitz

• Decision Date: 01 March 1898
• Citation: 116 Mich. 58,74 N.W. 290
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PARKER v. BARKENOWITZ ET UX.

74 N.W. 290

116 Mich. 58

PARKER v. BARKENOWITZ ET UX.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 1, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county, in chancery; Joseph W Donovan, Judge.

Bill by Thomas A. Parker against Oscar Barkenowitz and wife, in aid of execution. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Edward McNamara, for appellant.

John A Matthews, for appellees.

MONTGOMERY J.

Complainant as a judgment creditor of Oscar Barkenowitz, caused a levy to be made on three lots in the city of Detroit, which had been on the 16th of December, 1896, conveyed by defendant Oscar to his wife, the co-defendant, Susie. The bill in this case was filed in aid of execution. One of these lots, viz. lot 60 of the Pulford subdivision, was purchased in the name of the defendant Oscar on the 27th day of July, 1887. The other two lots, being 300 and 301 of the Harrah subdivision, were purchased, and a deed executed to the defendant Oscar in 1892. The circuit judge held that the lot in Pulford subdivision should be subjected to complainant's execution, and sustained the bill to this extent, but sustained the title of the defendant Susie to the Harrah lots. Complainant appeals. Defendants do not appeal.

The right of the parties as to the Pulford addition lot are not open on this record, and the transactions relating to this lot need not be considered, except as they may bear on the right of the parties in the two remaining lots. The evidence shows that before the marriage of the defendant, in 1884 defendant Oscar had been in business and was indebted in some small amounts; that after his marriage, in 1885, his wife engaged in the confectionery business at Chatham, Ontario, under the following circumstances: Both, it seems, were skilled in the business. Neither had any capital. A friend made a loan to Mrs. Barkenowitz, with which a business was opened in her name, she devoting her time to the work, defendant Oscar assisting her. Both testify that the business was done in her name, the bank account kept in her name, and the husband paid six dollars a week for his services. In 1888 the business was sold out, and about $1,100 realized. The parties then removed to Detroit, and the husband engaged in business for himself. In the meantime the lot in the Pulford addition had been purchased and the title taken in the name of the defendant Oscar, apparently with the consent of his wife. The agreement as to this was that lots should be purchased, and, when sufficient in value should be acquired, they should be exchanged for a homestead, which...