TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stoffer v. Stoffer

Henry Stoffer v. Louisa Stoffer

Stoffer v. Stoffer, 15 N.W. 564 (Mich. 1883)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 27, 1883
Judges
Pee
Citations
15 N.W. 56450 Mich. 4911883 Mich. LEXIS 845
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Divorce for desertion. Divorce, as for desertion, was granted a husband where his wife had left him against his protest, and in response to peremptory demands he had made provision for her and she had given him a release of claims on his property; and where, also, the parties were old and had been married only a month, and though there was no evidence of collusion, the case was undefended.
Summary
Appeal from Eaton. (Hooker, J.) Divorce bill. 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 — Pee

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

Pee Curiam.

Divorce is prayed in this case for the cause of desertion. The facts appear to be that the parties were married when the one was fifty and the other sixty years of age; that after living together a little more than a month the defendant avowed her purpose to separate from her husband and never live with him again; that he was opposed to the separation and endeavored through a friend to prevent it without success; that defendant demanded money from him when she went away, and that he gave her five hundred dollars, in return for which she gave him a release of claims upon his property. The separation took place more than three years before the bill was filed, and the parties have never lived together since.

If the separation had been by voluntary arrangement, the living apart in pursuance of it could not be called desertion. But in this case it appears that the separation was forced upon complainant against his desire. The provision he then made for his wife was made in pursuance of peremptory demands, and probably to avoid litigation; and we incline to hold that it should not preclude the redress he seeks. We can hardly say that the original fault was mutual; and though the case is undefended, there is no evidence of collusion.

The prayer of the bill will therefore be granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1888: 11906: 11907: 118882026peak 1888 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lemmert v. Lemmert63 A. 380 (Md. 1906)
  2. Patterson v. Patterson88 P. 196 (Wash. 1907)
  3. Parker v. Parker28 Ill. App. 22 (1888)

Most recent

  1. Patterson v. Patterson88 P. 196 (Wash. 1907)
  2. Lemmert v. Lemmert63 A. 380 (Md. 1906)
  3. Parker v. Parker28 Ill. App. 22 (1888)

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