Shoemaker v. Gardner
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal in Chancery from Berrien Circuit. In November, 1861, William Shoemaker, executed a mortgage on premises then occupied by him and his family, consisting of his wife and children, as a homestead. His wife did not join in the mortgage. This mortgage was foreclosed and the premises sold„under the decree to Davidson. Gardner, by whom proceedings were commenced to obtain possession of the premises.
Read the full summary
Appeal in Chancery from Berrien Circuit. In November, 1861, William Shoemaker, executed a mortgage on premises then occupied by him and his family, consisting of his wife and children, as a homestead. His wife did not join in the mortgage. This mortgage was foreclosed and the premises sold„under the decree to Davidson. Gardner, by whom proceedings were commenced to obtain possession of the premises. The bill in this case was filed by the said William Shoemaker and Louisa Shoemaker his wife, for a perpetual injunction against -the proceedings to obtain possession of the premises under the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
held that the wife was a proper party to a bill filed by a husband to protect the homestead; and that if the case made by the bill had shown the mortgaged premises to be a homestead as defined by law, the decree of the Court below would have been affirmed. The case, however, was defectively stated in this: — that the bill did not aver that the value of the premises, claimed as a homestead, did not exceed the sum of $1,500. The Court therefore reversed the decree; but as the proceedings in other respects seemed unexceptionable, the case was remanded, with leave to the complainants to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sexton v. SutherlandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917
- Evans v. Grand Rapids, Lansing & Detroit RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1888