Case ID: mich_49/html/0240-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mabston, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ursula L. Harrison v. Alexander M. Harrison and Loyal Crane.
    
      Divorce — Wife’s claim for pi'ope/t'iy.
    
    A wife appealed from a decree which granted her a divorce but denied her claim for property. It appeared that she had put into-her husband’s business money which she had acquired since their marriage, hut that he had conveyed land to her which was a full-equivalent therefor and of her full share of the property. EM that the decree would not be disturbed.
    Appeal from Yan Burén.
    Submitted June 28.
    Decided October 18.
    Bill for divorce. Complainant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      A. J. Mills and Howard & Moos for complainant.
    
      Bewjamin F. Heclcert for defendant Harrison.
    A husband will not be made to account to his wife for money which she has earned since their marriage and voluntarily turned over to him where it does not exceed the value of her services: 1 Bish. Married Women §§ 732, 212; 2 id. § 446.
   Mabston, J.

In. this canse a decree of divorce was granted the complainant, and claim made by her to the property of the defendant was denied, and from this part of the decree she appeals. .

Without attempting to decide what legal or equitable claim the complainant might have against her husband for moneys she acquired after their marriage and put into his business as detailed in the testimony, we are of opinion that in the land conveyed to her she has received the full equivalent thereof and her full share of all the property.

The case is not one that calls for any extended discussion upon the facts, and we think the decree should not be disturbed.

The decree will therefore be affirmed without costs to either party.

The other Justices concurred.