White v. White
| Decision Date | 04 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 159.,159. |
| Citation | 219 N.W. 593,242 Mich. 555 |
| Parties | WHITE v. WHITE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case-Made and Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Joseph A. Moynihan, Judge.
Suit for divorce by Annie White against Thomas White. Decree for plaintiff. Case-made, appeal by defendant, and decree reversed, with directions.
Argued before the Entire Bench. Roxborough, Taliaferro, Butler & Jones, of Detroit, for appellant.
Barnes & Stowers, of Detroit, for appellee.
This is a suit for divorce. The defendant filed an answer, but did not seek affirmative relief. A decree was granted to the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed, and he asks to have the decree reversed on the ground that a lawful marriage between the parties was not proven, and also that the plaintiff did not establish such a residence in this state as was necessary to give the court jurisdiction.
If there was a marriage between these parties, it was contracted in the state of Georgia. The alleged causes of divorce occurred in Michigan. Under such circumstances it was necessary to prove that the party applying for the divorce had resided in this state for at least one year immediately preceding the time of filing the bill. Section 11400, C. L. 1915. On this phase of the case the plaintiff testified as follows:
The plaintiff further testified that they lived together in Michigan 11 months and 15 days. She filed her bill 9 days after the separation. Thus, if, as appears from the record, they lived together from the time plaintiff came to Michigan to the date of separation, she had been in this state less than a year when the bill was filed. The plaintiff's attorney produced at the trial, and offered in evidence, a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff, and addressed to her at Savannah, Ga. This letter was postmarked at New York March 3, 1923, and was evidently received by the plaintiff while in Georgia. The bill of complaint was filed March 3, 1924.
It is stated in counsel's brief:
‘We contend first as to residence, eleven months and twenty-four days is a legal year within the letter and spirit of the statute enough to confer jurisdiction on the court.’
[4] The statute requires a full year's residence, and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smiht v. Foto
...as to residence is mandatory, and it must be made to appear affirmatively; otherwise the court is without jurisdiction.’ White v. White, 242 Mich. 555, 219 N.W. 593, 594, citing Bradfield v. Bradfield, 154 Mich. 115, 117 N.W. 588,129 Am.St.Rep. 468;Hoffman v. Hoffman, 155 Mich. 328, 118 N.W......
-
Promote the Vote v. Sec'y of State
...646 N.W.2d 158 (2002) ; by oath or testimony, see People v. Johnson , 81 Mich. 573, 576, 45 N.W. 1119 (1890) ; cf. White v. White , 242 Mich. 555, 556-557, 219 N.W. 593 (1928) ; or even simply appearing in person "and advising the authorities of where" he or she lives, see People v. Dowdy ,......
-
Stamadianos v. Stamadianos
...721 (1901) ], and Prettyman v Prettyman, 125 Ind 149 [25 NE 179 (1890) ].)" 325 Mich. 615-616, 39 N.W.2d 67. See also White v. White, 242 Mich. 555, 219 N.W. 593 (1928); Bradfield v. Bradfield, supra, and Pierson v. Pierson, 132 Mich.App. 667, 347 N.W.2d 779 (1984). Having reaffirmed that M......
-
Banfield v. Banfield, 70.
...in divorce proceedings is wholly statutory. Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 138;Baugh v. Baugh, 37 Mich. 59,26 Am.St.Rep. 495;White v. White, 242 Mich. 555, 219 N.W. 593. The pertinent provisions of the statute relating to the matter at issue here are found in Comp.Laws 1929, § 12731, as last am......