Jeske v. Jeske
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Grant, J.
(after stating the facts). Counsel for the complainant insists that an estate by the entirety is not affected by a decree of divorce, citing Lewis’ Appeal, 85 Mich. 340 . After that decision was rendered, the legislature amended section 27 of the divorce law, by providing that:
“ The court in lieu of a money allowance may decree such a division between the husband and wife of the real and personal estate of the husband, or of the husband and wife by joint ownership or right as he shall deem to be equitable and just.” 3 Comp. Laws, § 8640.
Complainant and defendant by the common law are ten ants by the entirety, and no act of either could affect the right or interest of the other. The statute was undoubtedly enacted to meet cases like the present. It changes the common law to the extent of holding that courts of equity may, in divorce proceedings, provide for such division of the property as is equitable. By the decree the complainant obtains all the personalty and half of the real estate with which to support herself and her two minor children. We think this division of the property a just one, and such as was authorized by the statute.
The decree is affirmed. No costs will be allowed.
McAlvay, C. J., and Carpenter, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.