Feiertag v. Feiertag
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Brevoort, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. On the facts of this case no action will lie; citing Allen v. Allen, 60 Mich. 635; Robinson v. McAfee, 59 Id. 375; Mason v. Dunbar, 43 Id. 407; Coe v. Wager, 42 Id. 49; Neeley v. Rich, 7 Bradw. 116; Harris v. Currier, 44 Vfc. 468; Prickett v. Prickett, 20 N. J. Eq. 478, and cases cited in Am.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne. (Brevoort, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. 1. On the facts of this case no action will lie; citing Allen v. Allen, 60 Mich. 635; Robinson v. McAfee, 59 Id. 375; Mason v. Dunbar, 43 Id. 407; Coe v. Wager, 42 Id. 49; Neeley v. Rich, 7 Bradw. 116; Harris v. Currier, 44 Vfc. 468; Prickett v. Prickett, 20 N. J. Eq. 478, and cases cited in Am. Digest, 1887, 957. 2. The error in admitting improper testimony is not cured, because the wrong is not undone, by an instruction to the jury to disregard it; citing Railroad Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17…
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
Minnie Feiertag is the step-daughter of Julia Feiertag, who is the divorced wife of Minnie^s father. In 1870, Minnie, then 15 years of age, learned the art of dress-making, and has ever since followed that, employment. At that time she lived with her father and step-mother, and so continued until 1881, when her stepmother obtained a divorce, and thereafter she continued to reside with her step-mother until sometime in 1887.
It will be observed that at the time of the divorce the plaintiff was 25 years of age or over, and nothing appears in the testimony to show that she was not an intelligent…
2Cited by2 opinions
- King v. BirdMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
- Feiertag v. FeiertagMichigan Supreme Court · 1890