Stratmann v. Stratmann
| Decision Date | 22 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 112.,112. |
| Citation | 282 N.W. 914,287 Mich. 94 |
| Parties | STRATMANN v. STRATMANN. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Ann M. Stratmann against Joseph T. Stratmann for separate maintenance, wherein defendant filed a cross-bill for divorce. From a decree dismissing plaintiff's bill and awarding defendant a divorce on the cross-bill, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Guy A. Miller, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Arnold F. Zeleznik, of Detroit, for appellant.
Eugene L. Mistersky, of Detroit, for appellee.
Plaintiff filed bill for separate maintenance under 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 12729, on grounds of extreme cruelty and defendant filed a cross-bill for divorce on similar grounds. After the hearing, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's bill, and awarded defendant a divorce upon his cross-bill.
It would be of no avail and would illuminate no principle of law to enter upon a discussion of the testimony. Two witnesses, one a nurse employed by plaintiff, and the other an acquaintance known to plaintiff approximately a year, testified in her behalf. Defendant likewise produced two witnesses, his brother and his sister. The evidence of either party, if believed, warranted a decree of divorce. The trial court decided the case solely upon the credibility of the witnesses, and stated that no case had previously come to the attention of the court in which the apparent character and demeanor of the parties was more helpful as an aid in arriving at a decision than in the instant case.
Although a divorce case is reviewed de novo, we are constrained to give especial consideration to the trial court's findings, so largely based upon the credibility of the witnesses, and the evidence does not disclose that such conclusions were unjustified. Where the decree of divorce rests wholly upon testimony in the case, the reviewing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beason v. Beason
...were treated differently from law cases on appeal. It is frequently said that divorce cases are reviewed de novo. Stratmann v. Stratmann, 287 Mich. 94, 95, 282 N.W. 914 (1938); Westgate v. Westgate, 291 Mich. 18, 23, 288 N.W. 860 (1939); Wells v. Wells, 330 Mich. 448, 452, 47 N.W.2d 687 How......
-
Wells v. Wells, 52
...the position of the lower court, under like circumstances. Brookhouse v. Brookhouse, 286 Mich. 151, 281 N.W. 573; Stratmann v. Stratmann, 287 Mich. 94, 282 N.W. 914; Westgate v. Westgate, 291 Mich. 18, 288 N.W. The language above quoted is applicable in the case at bar. It is apparent from ......
-
Kolberg v. Kolberg
...the position of the lower court, under like circumstances. Brookhouse v. Brookhouse, 286 Mich. 151, 281 N.W. 573;Stratmann v. Stratmann, 287 Mich. 94, 282 N.W. 914;Westgate v. Westgate, 291 Mich. 18, 288 N.W. 860.’ See also, Brewer v. Brewer, 295 Mich. 370, 294 N.W. 715. The decree dismissi......
-
Potter v. Potter, 119
...the position of the lower court, under like circumstances. Brookhouse v. Brookhouse, 286 Mich 151 [281 N.W. 573]; Stratmann v. Stratmann, 287 Mich. 94 [282 N.W. 914]; Westgate v. Westgate, 291 Mich. 18 [288 N.W. The above statement was quoted in Johnson v. Johnson, 314 Mich. 376, 382 [22 N.......