Legal Opinion

Bankers Trust Co. v. Humber

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1933No. Docket No. 108, Calendar No. 37,158PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

From dismissal of judgment creditor's bill plaintiff has appealed.

The facts will be implied from statement of the question which is: May a creditor of the husband alone have right by appropriate process to seize rents and income of entireties property? The answer is "No," on the authority of AmericanState Trust Co. v. Rosenthal, 255 Mich. 157, in which earlier decisions are discussed.

The facts do not make a case where the husband has placed funds or property in an entireties estate in fraud of his creditors, so Morse v. Roach, 229 Mich. 538; Lemerise v.Robinson, 241 Mich. 528, and like cases…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Morse v. RoachMichigan Supreme Court · 1924
  2. American State Trust Co. v. RosenthalMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Lemerise v. RobinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. HartCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1935
  2. United States v. NathansonDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1945
  3. Morris v. WolfeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1973
  4. Gessner v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1935
  5. Arrand v. GrahamMichigan Supreme Court · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API