TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Davidson v. Davidson

Rachel Davidson v. John Davidson

Davidson v. Davidson, 10 N.W. 179 (Mich. 1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 26, 1881
Judges
Cooley, Other
Citations
10 N.W. 17947 Mich. 1511881 Mich. LEXIS 440
Disposition
Bill dismissed without prejudice.
Headnotes
Support of wife apart from husband. A bill for tlie support of the wife separate from the husband will only be sustained when the reasons for it are imperative. If from the evidence the court is satisfied the difficulties between the parties are not serious, the bill will be dismissed, especially where there are young children for whom they ought to provide a home.
Summary
Appeal from Saginaw. Bill filed by wife for separate support. Defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Cooley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Cooley, J.

The bill in this case is filed by a wife against her husband to obtain a separate support. A large amount of evidence has been put in to show the difficulties between the parties and .their cause, but it does not impress us that they are of such a nature as ought to preclude the parties living together in comfort. Under such circumstances we are not -inclined to provide for a separate maintenance. The parties have four minor children for whom they ought to provide a home; and the proper home obviously is one where their parents reside. A permanent separation of the parents could scarcely fail to be injurious to the children, and it is a condition of things which a court should provide for only when the reasons are imperative. "We do not find such reasons in this record. ¥e shall however direct the bill to be dismissed without prejudice, that the wife may not be without redress in case the husband shall hereafter unreasonably refuse to provide for her. At the same time we deem it proper to say we consider the ease one for mutual concessions.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1881–1882: 11949–1950: 118812026peak 1881 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sullivan v. Sullivan35 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1949)
  2. Kiefer v. Carrier10 N.W. 562 (Wis. 1881)

Most recent

  1. Sullivan v. Sullivan35 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1949)
  2. Kiefer v. Carrier10 N.W. 562 (Wis. 1881)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list