Freeman v. Freeman
Michigan Supreme Court
“ Melaneton Freeman, petitioner, v. Rebecca Freeman, respondent.— It satisfactorily appearing to this court that the defendant in this cause, Rebecca Freeman, is not a resident of this state, but that she resides in the city of New York: On motion of Johnson and Martin, solicitors for petitioner, it is ordered, that the said defendant cause her appearance in this cause to be entered within four months from the date of this order, and that, in case of her appearance, she…
Read the full summary
“ Melaneton Freeman, petitioner, v. Rebecca Freeman, respondent.— It satisfactorily appearing to this court that the defendant in this cause, Rebecca Freeman, is not a resident of this state, but that she resides in the city of New York: On motion of Johnson and Martin, solicitors for petitioner, it is ordered, that the said defendant cause her appearance in this cause to be entered within four months from the date of this order, and that, in case of her appearance, she cause her answer to said petition to be filed, and a copy thereof to be served on the petitioner’s solicitors within forty…
1Opinion of the Court
Where in chancery the order for the appearance of a non-rosident defendant in a divorce case, was not in compliance with seo. 12, ch. 2, tit. 7, part 2, R. S. 1888, tut was the same as in other cases of non-resident defendants, the decree of the Chancellor granting' a divorce was reversed for want of jurisdiction.
Appeal from tire Court of Chancery, third circuit. A petition for a divorce was filed against a non-resident defendant, under R. S. 1838, and. the following order was made for the appearance of the defendant, viz:
Which order was published as therein required ;> and the' defendant not…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Streeter v. McMillanMichigan Supreme Court · 1889