Poxson v. Poxson
| Decision Date | 06 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 191.,191. |
| Citation | 245 N.W. 536,260 Mich. 625 |
| Parties | POXSON v. POXSON. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery.
Divorce action by Isabelle Andrews Poxson against Charles A. Poxson. Plaintiff was granted a decree of divorce, and subsequently defendant moved for modification of the allowance of alimony, and, from the modification of the decree, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Alfred Lindbloom, of Detroit, for appellant.
Corliss, Leete & Moody, of Detroit, for appellee.
Under a decree of divorce, granted plaintiff in January, 1926, defendant was required to pay, as permanent alimony to his wife and for the support of their child, the sum of $125 per month until September 1, 1926, then $150 per month for one year, and thereafter $175 per month.
August 1, 1931, defendant moved the circuit court for a modification of the allowance of $175 per month, alleging change in his circumstances as well as in the circumstances of plaintiff. The friend of the court made an investigation and recommended a reduction to $150 per month. The court also heard the proofs of the parties and made the reduction recommended. Defendant reviews by appeal.
Defendant's salary as a salesman has been reduced to $384.34 per month. Some time ago defendant went into debt in order to purchase stocks when such were considered good investments, and now has the stocks, of small value, and the obligations, to a considerable amount, to pay for the same. He has remarried. During the plentiful years he faithfully performed the order of the court, but, under the lean years, he wants the burden eased.
Plaintiff, since the divorce, has qualified herself for employment, and, at the time of the hearing, was earning the sum of $130 per month. Plaintiff and the now twelve year old daughter live with her parents, and she insists that the allowance of $150 per month is necessary.
The friend of the court made a painstaking investigation, and this was supplemented by such proofs as the parties desired to present in open court.
The health of plaintiff is not good, and now and for some time she will require the services of a physician. The health of the child is not good.
We are loath to disturb the finding in the circuit court.
Counsel for defendant asserts right, under court rule No. 59, § 9, to have full reveiw of the decree granted in 1926, and to that end has included in the record the testimony then taken.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial