TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Simons v. Simons

Rebecca Simons v. David W. Simons

Simons v. Simons, 10 N.W. 360 (Mich. 1881)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 27, 1881
Judges
Mansion, Other
Citations
10 N.W. 36047 Mich. 2531881 Mich. LEXIS 477
Disposition
Dismissal affirmed.
Headnotes
One cannot take advantage of one’s own wrong Where a wife had obtained a divorce on a sworn bill containing the usual allegation that there was no collusion, a subsequent bill filed by her to set aside the decree on the ground that it was procured by collusion was properly dismissed, in the absence of any showing that she had been defrauded.
Summary
Appeal from "Wayne. Bill to aside a decree of divorce. Complainant 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 — Mansion

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

Mansion, C. J".

This is an appeal by the complainant from the decree dismissing the bill, which was filed to set aside a previous decree of divorce granted upon the complaint of this complainant, and which she now alleges was procured by collusion with her husband, the defendant. In the bill first filed and upon which the decree was granted she alleged that the acts done as therein set forth, “ were committed without the consent, connivance, privity or procurement of your oratrix, and that such bill is not founded on, or exhibited in consequence of any collusion, agreement or understanding whatever, between the parties thereto or between your oratrix or any other person,” — and this was sworn to. Without this sworn allegation in her bill of complaint it would not have been entertained, and she having thereby given the court jurisdiction and permitted the case to proceed to a final decree, she cannot now be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong and show that there was *254 collusion between berself and husband in that case. She was not misled or defrauded therein but understood well what was being done, and that her husband consented. Indeed, the whole matter was simply a shameless bargain, and whether right or wrong she must now abide by it.

The decree dismissing the bill will be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11893: 31900: 11902: 11909: 11914: 11915: 11918: 11927: 31928: 11932: 11949: 21950: 11966: 118882026peak 1893 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fairclough v. St. Amand114 So. 472 (Ala. 1927)
  2. Karren v. Karren60 L.R.A. 294 (Utah 1902)
  3. Bancroft v. Bancroft173 P. 579 (Cal. 1918)
  4. Robinson v. Robinson138 P. 288 (Wash. 1914)
  5. Miller v. Miller38 N.W.2d 35 (N.D. 1949) · Dissent
  6. Van Slyke v. Van Slyke152 N.W. 921 (Mich. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Shapiro v. Shapiro190 So. 2d 548 (Ala. 1966)
  2. Kull v. Losch44 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. 1950)
  3. Zirkalos v. Zirkalos40 N.W.2d 313 (Mich. 1949)
  4. Miller v. Miller38 N.W.2d 35 (N.D. 1949) · Dissent
  5. Robson v. Kramer245 N.W. 341 (Iowa 1932)
  6. Alderdyce v. Alderdyce221 N.W. 153 (Mich. 1928)

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