STATE OF MICHIGAN 
COMPILATION OF LAWS 
CONCERNING THE 
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES; 
THE SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGES AND THE 
ISSUANCE OF LICENSES THEREFOR; 
AND THE 
LAWS CONCERNING DIVORCE, 
WITH 
SUGGESTIONS TO PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES. 
Compiled under the Supervision of 
WASHINGTON GHARZDNTHIR, 
Secretary of State. 
BY AUTHORITY 
LANSING 
ROBERT SMITH & CO., STATE PRINTERS AND BINDERS 
1896 STATE OF MICHIGAN 
COMPILATION OF LAWS 
CONCERNING THE 
* 
Reptration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages; 
THE SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGES AND THE 
ISSUANCE OF LICENSES THEREFOR; 
AND THE 
LAWS CONCERNING DIVORCE, 
WITH 
I 
SUGGESTIONS TO PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES. 
' Compiled under the Sapervision of 
WASHINGTON GARDNER, 
Secretary of State. 
AUTHORITY 
LANSING 
ROBERT SMITH & CO., STATE PRINTERS AND BINDERS 
1896 LAWS RELATING TO THE REGISTRA- 
TION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS. 
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, (a) 
AN ACT to provide for the Registration of Births, Marriages and 
Deaths. 
§858, S. L. 1867, Act 194; Am. 1869, Act 125. Section 1. 
The People of the State of Michigan enact, That it shall 
be the duty of the supervisor of each township, and the 
supervisor or assessor of any city or ward therein, in this 
State, between the tenth day of April and the first day of 
June, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-nine, to ascer- 
tain, by actual inquiry or otherwise, of the inhabitants thereof, 
the births and deaths which have occurred in their respective 
townships, cities, or wards, from and including April fifth, 
eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, to and including December 
thirty-first, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, together with 
the facts relative thereto, as are hereinafter provided for, and 
shall make an accurate return thereof to the clerk of the county 
in which such township or city is situated, on or before the 
first said day of June; and for such service shall receive ten 
cents for each birth and death so returned by them, to be paid 
by the county in which such returns are made. In the year 
eighteen hundred and seventy, and in each and every year 
thereafter, it shall be the duty of the officers above mentioned, 
between the tenth day of April and the first day of June, to 
asceratin, by actual inquiry or otherwise, of the inhabitants 
thereof, the births and deaths which have occurred in their 
respective townships, cities or wards, during the year ending 
on the last day of the preceding December, and shall make the 
return and receive therefor compensation above provided for: 
Provided, That in the city of Detroit, the duties required by 
this act to be performed by supervisors and assessors shall be 
performed by persons appointed by the common council for 
that purpose; and it shall be the duty of the common council, 
on or before the tenth day of April in each year, to appoint 
such number of persons in each ward of said city as shall be 
necessary to perform said duties within the time limited by 
Duties of su- 
pervisors and 
assessors. 
In 1869 returns 
to be made 
from April 5 to 
Dec. 31,1868. 
Return to 
county clerk. 
In 1870 and 
thereafter. 
Returns to in- 
clude from 
January to De- 
cember last 
preceding. 
Statistics, how 
obtained. 
Compensation. 
Proviso rela- 
tive to the city 
of Detroit. 
Duty of com- 
mon council. 
(a) The requirements as to registration of marriages are governed by Act 128, Public 
Acts 1887. 4 
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS. 
Persons to be 
appointed by. 
this act; and such persons shall possess all the authority con- 
ferred upon, and perform all the duties required of supervisors 
and assessors, by this act, within the territory assigned them, 
respectively, by the common council, and shall receive such 
compensation for their services, not exceeding»the sum allowed 
by this act to supervisors and assessors, as shall be fixed by the 
common council, to be paid by the county of Wayne, and shall 
be liable to the same penalties for refusal or neglect to perform 
any of said duties. 
§ 859. Seo. 2. Every justice of the peace, minister of the 
gospel, and all other persons authorized by law to solemnize 
marriages in this State, shall make a record of each marriage 
so solemnized by him, and every clerk or keeper of the records 
of the meetings in which any marriage among the Friends or 
Quakers shall be solemnized, shall make a record of such mar- 
riage, together with all the facts relating to the same, as 
required'by the third section of this act; and such justice, 
minister of the gospel, clerk, or other person, shall, at the 
time such marriage is solemnized, deliver, on demand, to 
either of the parties so joined in marriage, as aforesaid, a cer- 
tificate of such marriage, containing all the facts in relation 
thereto, required by said third section of this act, and shall, 
within ninety days thereafter, deliver to the clerk of the 
county in which such marriage took place, a certified copy of 
such record, and, at the same time, pay to the clerk twenty- 
five cents for recording the same. 
§ 860. Am. 1869, Act 125. Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of 
the county clerks of the several counties in this State, on 
receiving the returns of such births, marriages and deaths, to 
record the same at length in separate books, to be provided at 
the expense cf the State by the Secretary of State, for that 
purpose, with proper indexes thereto. The births, marriages 
and deaths shall be numbered and recorded in the order in 
which they are received by the clerk, and the record of mar- 
riages shall be indexed, using both the name of the bridegroom 
and bride. The record of births shall state, in separate col- 
umns, the date of the birth, the name of the child (if it have 
any), the sex and color of the child, the place of birth, the 
Christian and 'surname of both parents, the residence and 
nativity of the parents, the occupation of the father, and the 
date when the record was made: Provided, That in case the 
child has no Christian name, such name shall be obtained and 
reported to the county clerk in the next annual report of the 
supervisor or assessor, and such Christian name shall be dis- 
tinctly designated in such report as the Christian name belong- 
ing to a child previously reported, and shall be properly 
entered by said county clerk, in the blank left for such chris- 
tiap name in bis book of record ; and it shall be the duty of the 
several county clerks, on or before the tenth day of April ill 
each year, to give to the officers required to make the saia 
returns, lists of such children whose Christian names have not 
been previously reported in their respective towns, cities or 
wards. The record of marriages shall state, in separate ool- 
Compensation 
of persons so 
appointed. 
How paid. 
Penalties. 
Marriages to 
be recorded. 
Marriage of 
Quakers. 
Certificates to 
be furnished. 
Fee for record- 
ing. 
County clerks; 
duties of. 
Births, mar- 
riages and 
deaths to be 
numbered and 
indexed. 
Becord of 
births shall 
state. 
Proviso. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS. 
5 
umns, the date and place of marriage, the Christian and sur- 
name of the birdegroom and bride, and the maiden name of 
the bride, if a widow, the color, age, and place of birth of 
each, the residence of each at the time of marriage, the occu- 
pation of the bridegroom, and the name and official station of 
the person by or before whom they were married, the names 
and residences of at least two witnesses present at such mar- 
riage, and the date when such record was made. The record 
of deaths shall state, in separate columns, the date of the 
death, the Christian and surname of the deceased, the sex and 
color, whether married or single, the age in years, months, 
and days, the place of death, the disease or apparent cause of 
death, the nativity of the deceased, and the occupation, if any, 
and the names, residence of the parents, if known, and the 
date when such record was made. The clerks of the several 
counties shall annually, on or before the first day of Septem- 
ber make and transmit to the Secretary of State, a certified 
copy of the records of his office, of all the births, marriages 
and deaths reported in their respective counties for the year 
ending December thirty-first, last preceding. And each 
county clerk shall receive for the record of each birth and 
death in his office three cents, and three cents for each birth, 
marriage and death returned by him to the Secretary of State, 
to be paid by the county, and shall be compensation in full for 
all services required by this act to be performed by him. 
§ 861. Am. Id. Sec. 4. The Secretary of the State shall 
prepare and furnish to the county clerks of the several counties 
in this State, blank books of suitable quality and size, with 
proper rulings and headings, to be used as books of record, in 
carrying into effect the provisions of this act. He shall also 
prepare and furnish blank "forms for returns," as herein- 
before specified, accompanied with such instructions and 
explanations as may be necessary to insure uniformity in such 
returns, which blanks shall be forwarded to the several county 
clerks on or before the first day of March in each year; and 
the said county clerks shall deliver the same to the supervisors 
or assessors of the several townships, cities, or wards therein, 
in their respective counties, on or before the tenth day of 
April. 
§ 862. Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of 
State to receive the returns made in pursuance of the third 
section of this act, and he shall cause the same for each year 
to be bound together, in one or more volumes, at the expense 
of the State, and make indexes thereto; and with such assist- 
ance as may be voluntarily rendered by any authorized com- 
mittee appointed by the medical faculty of the University of 
Michigan, or by any regularly authorized medical society in 
this State, for that purpose, he shall prepare such tabular 
statements, results, and deductions therefrom as will render 
them of practical utility, and make report thereof, annually, 
to the Governor of the State, which report may be ordered 
published and distributed in such manner as the Legislature 
may from time to time direct. 
Record of mar- 
riage shall 
state. 
Record of 
deaths shall 
state. 
Return of 
county clerk. 
Compensation. 
Secretary of 
State shall fur- 
nish all blank 
books, blanks, 
instructions, 
etc. 
Returns to be 
bound and 
indexed. 
Secretary of 
State to make 
annual report. 6 
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AM) DEATHS. 
§ 863. Sec. 6. Every justice of the peace, minister of the 
gospel, and all other persons authorized by the laws of this 
State to solemnize marriages, and clerks or keepers of records 
of the meetings in which any marriage among the Friends or 
Quakers shall be solemnized, who shall neglect or refuse to 
make a record of such marriage, or to deliver to the county 
clerk of the county in which the marriage took place, a certi- 
fied copy of such record, or who shall refuse, on demand, to 
deliver to the parties to such marriage the certificate thereof, 
as required by section two of this act, or who shall wilfully 
make a false or fictitious entry in his record of marriages, or in 
the certified copy of such record delivered to the county clerk, 
or in the certificates of marriages delivered to the parties 
thereto, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon 
conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding 
one hundred dollars, and in default of paying the same, shall 
be imprisoned in the county jail of the county in which such 
conviction shall be had, until said fine be paid, but not to 
exceed the period of ninety days. 
§ 864. Sec. 7. Every physician, surgeon or midwife who 
shall have been in attendance upon any deceased person, shall, 
upon application of any supervisor or assessor of the township 
city, or any ward thereof, in which such death occurred, make 
out and deliver to such supervisor or assessor a certified state- 
ment, without fee, containing the name of the disease, or cause 
(if known), producing the death of such person; and any 
medical attendant who shall neglect or refuse to give such 
statement, or who shall wilfully make a false statement in 
relation to such death, shall, for such offense, be liable to pay 
a fine of not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars, and the 
costs of prosecution, which fine the said supervisor or assessor 
is hereby required to sue for and collect, in his official char- 
acter. 
§ 865. Sec. 8. It shall be the duty of each supervisor or 
assessor to obtain the facts in relation to births and deaths 
within his township, city, or any ward therein (not otherwise 
obtained), from the heads of families, the keepers, overseers, 
or superintendents of asylums, hospitals, jails, prisons, work- 
houses, almshouses, houses of correction, and similar institu- 
tions, the keepers of hotels, public and private boarding 
houses, and the masters or chief officers of steamboats and sail 
vessels, navigating any of the waters of this state, and touch- 
ing at any port of entry therein, in which such births or 
deaths occurred; and if either of the above named persons 
shall refuse to give such information, then the same shall be 
obtained by such supervisor or assessor from any person hav- 
ing a knowledge of the facts in relation to such birth or death; 
and if the supervisor or assessor shall have reason to believe 
that any person or persons wilfully misrepresented or concealed 
any facts relative to such birth or death in his township, city, 
or any ward therein, which he cannot otherwise obtain, he may 
examine such person or persons on oath (which oath such 
supervisor or assessor is hereby empowered and authorized to 
Neglect to 
keep records. 
Neglect to de- 
liver certifi- 
cates. 
Penalty 
Certificate of 
death. 
Refusal to 
make certifi- 
cate. 
Penalty. 
Facts to be 
obtained by 
supervisor. 
Refusal to fur- 
nish. 
Obtained 
under oath. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS. 
7 
administer) in relation to any birth or death within his town- 
ship, city or any ward therein, of which such person or per- 
sons may have knowledge or information; and if any person, 
after being duly subpoenaed (as provided for compelling the 
attendance of witnesses in justices' courts) by such supervisor 
or assessor, for the purposes aforesaid, shall neglect or refuse 
to appear before such officer, or, appearing, shall refuse to be 
sworn and testify in relation to such matter, he shall be 
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof 
shall be punished therefor by fine not exceeding fifty dollars, 
and in default of paying the same shall be imprisoned in the 
county jail of the county in which such conviction shall be 
had, until said fine be paid, but not exceeding ninety days; 
and any person who, after being duly sworn as aforesaid, shall 
wilfully make any false statement in relation to any birth or 
death, about which he is required to testify, shall be deemed 
guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury: Provided, That no per- 
son shall be required to answer any question which will tend 
to criminate himself or herself upon any such examination. 
§ 866. Sec. 9. In case of the refusal or neglect by any of 
the officers mentioned in this act, to perform any of the duties 
hereinbefore required of them or either of them, to be done 
and performed by any of the provisions herein contained, 
such officer shall be liable to a fine not to exceed one hundred 
dollars, and the costs of prosecution; and the prosecuting 
attorney in each county is hereby required to prosecute, in the 
name of the people of the State of Michigan, all persons in his 
county who shall wilfully violate any of the provisions of this 
act; and the said supervisor or assessors of any township, city 
or any ward therein, may be prosecuted for a misdemeanor 
under this section, and upon conviction, punished as therein 
provided for. 
§ 867. Added 1869, Act 125. Sec. 10. (11). The several 
supervisors and assessors of the townships, villages, and cities 
in this State, who have made any returns of births and deaths 
to the county clerk of their respective counties for the year 
eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, and have not received the 
amount of compensation as provided for in this act, shall be 
paid therefor at rates set forth in the preceding sections. And 
such county clerks as have made returns of the births, mar- 
riages and deaths to the Secretary of State for the year eight- 
een hundred and sixty-eight, and who have not received com- 
pensation therefor, shall be paid for the same at the rates set 
forth in the preceding sections. 
Neglecting to 
answer a sub- 
poena. 
Penalty. 
Perjury. 
Proviso. 
Neglect to per- 
form duties. 
Penalty. 
Misdemeanor. 
Compensation 
of supervisors 
and assessors 
for 1868. 
County clerks 8 
MARRIAGE LAWS. 
MARRIAGE AND THE SOLEMNIZATION THEREOF, (a) 
who shall be 
trfcathigOmCa°rn 
riage. 
§6209. Rev. Stat. 1846, Chap. 83. Section 1. Every 
male who shall have attained the full age of eighteen years, 
and every female who shall have attained the full age of sixteen 
years, shall be capable in law of contracting marriage, if other 
wise competent. (See notes.) 
§ 6210. Seo. 2. Marriage as far as its validity in law is 
concerned, is a civil contract to which the consent of parties 
capable in law of contracting is essential. (See notes.) 
§ 6211. Seo. 3. No man shall marry his mother, grand- 
mother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's 
wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grand- 
mother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, nor his sister, 
brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or 
mother's sister. (See notes.) 
§ 6212. Sec. 4. No woman shall marry her father, grand- 
father, son, grandson, stepfather, grandmother's husband, 
daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's 
father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's 
grandson, nor her brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's 
brother, or mother's brother. 
§ 6213. Seo. 5. No marriage shall be contracted whilst 
either of the parties has a former wife or husband living, 
unless the marriage with such former wife or husband shall 
have been dissolved, (b ) (See notes.) 
§ 6214. Seo. 6. No insane person or idiot shall be capable 
of contracting marriage. All marriages heretofore contracted 
between white persons and those wholly or in part of African 
Marriage is a 
civi contract. 
Who shall not 
mtermarry. 
Idem. 
Who not to 
marry. 
Insane per- 
sons, etc. 
What mar- 
riages declared 
valid. 
(a) For prior Statutes relative to the solemnization of Marriages, see Woodward Code, 
p. 42; Cass Code, p. Ill; Code of 1820, p. 259; Rev. of 1827, p. 280; Laws of 1832, p. 6; Rev. 
of 1838, p. 329; R. S. of 1838, p. 333. The requirements as to licenses and solemnization 
of marriages are governed by Act 128, Public Acts 1887. 
(ft) Act 137, Laws of 1887, prohibits divorced persons from remarrying for a period 
specified in the decree, not to exceed two years. 
Note.-The effect of marriage was, at the common law, to produce what is called 
unity of person: the husband and wife being but one person in the law: Burdeno v. 
Amperse, 14 Mien. 92. 
6209. Age of legal consent: People v. Slack, 15 Mich. 193; Bouker v. People, 37 
Mich. 7; Lewis v. People, 37 Mich. 518. 
Contracting marriage means the actual forming of the marriage relation. Marriages 
contracted by parties who are of the legal age to consent are valid. But executory con- 
tracts to marry, made by parties under the age of twenty years, have not the legal force 
necessary to sustain an action for breach of promise: Frost v. Fought '31 Mich. 65. 
§6210. Marriage a contract, etc., Leavitt v. Leavitt, 13 Mich. 456. Chastity is not 
requisite to its validity: Id. 
A contract by which two parties mutually agreed to live as man and wife, but each 
was to retain the right to buy, sell, or transfer his or her property without question 
from the other. Held to provide only for a concubinage intercourse, is not a valid con- 
tract under which either party can claim any rights: Clancy v. Clancy, 66 Mich. 202. 
Where one of the parties to an alleged marriage, instead of assenting to the contract, 
positively dissents from it, there can be no legal or valid marriage, although a cere- 
mony is performed by the officiating minister or magistrate: Roszel v. Roszel, 73 Mich. 
133. 
§6211. Marriages are prohibited within the degrees of consanguinity named, whether 
the parties are legitimate or illegitimate, or of the whole or the half blood: People v 
Jenness, 5 Mich. 318. 
§ 6213. People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 273. 
§ 6214. People v. Brown, 34 Mich. 340. 
Marriages between members of Indian tribe in tribal relations, were unquestionably 
good by the Indian rules. The court cannot interfere with the validity of such marriages 
without subjecting them to rules of law which never bound them: Kobogum v. Jack- 
son Iron Co., 76 Mich. 498. 
It is a principal of universal law that marriages valid by the law governing both 
parties when made, must be treated as valid everywhere: Id. MARRIAGE LAWS. 
9 
descent are hereby declared valid and effectual in law for all 
purposes, and the issue of such marriages shall be deemed and 
taken legitimate as to such issue and as to both of the parents. 
(See notes.) 
§ 6215. Seo. 7. Marriages may be solemnized by any jus- 
tice of the peace in the county in which he was chosen, and 
they may be solemnized throughout the State by any minister 
of the gospel who has been ordained according to the usages of 
his denomination, and who is a pastor of any church or 
churches in this State, or who shall continue to preach the 
gospel in this State: Provided, That all non-resident minis- 
ters of the gospel who are authorized by this act to solemnize 
marriages, shall keep proper records and make returns as 
required by section two, chapter sixteen, of the compiled laws 
of eighteen hundred and seventy-one. (a.) (See notes.) 
§ 6216. Sec. 8 All justices of the peace and ministers of 
the gospel are hereby authorized and required, before solemn- 
izing any marriage, to examine at least one of the parties on 
oath, which oath they are hereby authorized to administer, as 
to the legality of such intended marriage. (See notes.) 
§ 6217. Sec. 9, In the solemnization of marriage, no par- 
Marriages by 
whom solem- 
nized. 
Proviso as to 
non-resident 
ministers. 
One of parties 
to be examined 
on oath. 
No particular 
form required. 
(a) Previous to 1871 the Mayor of Flint was also authorized to solemnize marriages. 
§ 6215. The validity of marriages solemnized in other states, must, in criminal cases, 
be shown by the laws of such states: People v. Lambert, 5 Mich. 364. 
A marriage by a justice outside of his county, followed by cohabitation of the parties 
as husband and wife for fourteen years, held legal, in a criminal prosecution for 
adultery : People v. Girdler, 65 Mich. 68. 
While there may be countries where marriages are void unless solemnized by a person 
having actually the authority to perform them, such is not the general rule, and such 
is not our law: People v. Perriman, 12 Mich. 184. 
A witness who swears to seeing a man and woman joined together by a marriage cere- 
mony, performed seriously and in earnest, by a person acting in the character of a cler- 
gyman or magistrate, testifies to what is a valid marriage unless clearly made illegal 
by statute: Id. 
A marriage valid when it is celebrated will be valid everywhere, but if void where 
celebrated it will be void everywhere: Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 131. 
8 6216. Examination of the parties on oath: Bouker v. People, 37 Mich. 4, 10. 
§ 6217. In this state, whatever the form of ceremony, or even if all ceremony be dis- 
pensed with, if the parties agree presently to take each other for husband and wife, and 
from that time live together professedly in that relation, this will be sufficient to con- 
stitute a marriage binding upon the parties, and which will subject them and others 
to legal penalties for a disregard of its obligations: Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 
130. A marriage ceremony is not conclusive of a valid marriage; consent is necessary. 
When a marriage is not otherwise made out, very clear evidence of conduct in confir- 
mation with that relation is required: Kopke v. People, 43 Mich. 45. 
Continued cohabitation as husband and wife establishes the relation without any 
actual marriage ceremony, if the parties are competent to marry and consent to take 
each other as husband and wife: Peet v. Peet, 52 Mich. 464; Williams v. Kilburn, 88 
Mich. 279. 
Reputation is important as evidence to establish the fact of a marriage, but it cannot 
disprove an actual marriage. And where there is doubt, the presumption should favor 
a lawful marriage, rather than notorious immorality: Id. 
In proving marriage, reputation is important only as circumstantial evidence as to 
whether the parties themselves regarded each other as husband and wife: Cross v. 
Cross, 55 Mich. 280. ' 
As to marriages solemnized in other states and countries, a formal ceremony of mar- 
riage, whether in due form or not, must be assumed to be by consent, and therefore 
prima facie a contract of marriage per verba de presenti; and when the local law is 
not shown, the argument in its favor is, that marriage between parties capable of con- 
tracting it is of common right, and valid by a common law prevailing throughout 
christendom. Prima facie, a good marriage is shown when the contract is proved with 
cohabitation following it, and it cannot be assumed that there are regulations restrict- 
ive of the common right until they are shown. When parties take such steps abroad to 
constitute a marriage as would be sufficient under our laws, afterwards remove to this 
state and continue to live together here as husband and wife, recognizing the validity 
and binding obligation of that relation, they will be deemed to be legally married: 
Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 126. See People v. Calder, 30 Mich. 85; Kopke v. People, 
43 Mich. 44-5. 
It is quite possible for a valid marriage to be shown with no means to show its time 
and place, and this is especially true of marriages in distant places: People v. Perriman, 
72 Mich. 184. 10 
MARRIAGE LAWS. 
ticular form shall be required, except that the parties shall 
solemnly declare, in the presence of the magistrate or minister 
and the attending witnesses that they take each other as hus- 
band and wife; and in every case there shall be at least two 
witnesses, besides the minister or magistrate, present at the 
ceremony. (See notes.} 
Sec. 10. Repealed S. L. 1869, Act 194, Sec. 10. 
Sec. 11. Repealed Id. 
Sec. 12. Repealed Id. 
Sec. 13. Repealed Id. 
§6218. Sec. 14. If any justice of the peace or minister of 
th® gospel shall join any person in marriage contrary to the 
ProviEi°ns this chapter, he shall forfeit for every such 
offense a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars. 
§6219. Sec. 15. If any person shall undertake to join 
others in marriage, knowing that he is not lawfully authorized 
so to do, or knowing of any legal impediment to the proposed 
marriage, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeaor, and, 
upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment 
in the county jail not more than one year, or by a fine not less 
than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars, or by both such 
fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. (See 
notes.) 
§ 6220. Sec. 16. No marriage solemnized before any per- 
son professing to be a justice of the peace or a minister of the 
gospel, shall be deemed or adjudged to be void, nor shall the 
validity thereof be in any way affected on account of any want 
of jurisdiction or authority in such supposed justice or minis- 
ter: Provided, That the marriage be consummated with a full 
belief on the part of the persons so married, or either of them, 
that they have been lawfully joined in marriage. 
§ 6221. Se.c. 17. The preceding provisions of this chap- 
ter, so far as they relate to the manner of solemnizing mar- 
riages, shall not affect marriages among the people called 
Friends or Quakers; nor marriages among people of any other 
particular demonination having, as such, any peculiar mode of 
solemnizing marriages; but such marriages may be solemnized 
in the manner heretofore used and practiced in their respective 
societies or denominations. 
§ 6222. Sec. 18. The original certificates and records of 
marriage made by the minister or justice, as prescribed in this 
chapter, and the record thereof made by the county clerk, or a 
Forfeiture for 
soLTFnma?- 
toaiawC°ntrary 
Punishment of 
thorized?nau" 
Marriage not 
cases"'certain 
Marriages 
ers°ngQuak 
Certificates 
mnadeee?i-d 
dence. 
§ 6219. A misdemeanor, etc., Bouker, v. People, 37 Mich. 4. Whatever is in the way 
of a valid marriage is such an impediment as the statute has in view. This statute 
applies to a marriage where the girl is under the age of consent: Id. 
§ 6222. The certificates and records of marriages referred to in this section were 
provided for in sections 10, 11, 12, 13 of this chapter. Those sections were repealed in 
1867, and new provisions for such certificates and records were then enacted: See 
859, 860. 
A duly authenticated certificate of a marriage celebrated in a foreign country may 
be received in evidence here: Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 126. 
A paper purporting to be a certificate of a marriage solemnized in another state, and 
certified by the clerk of the county to be a true and perfect copy of such certificate, as 
the same appears from the records in his office, but which is not certified as required 
by the act of Congress, and does not conform to any rule of the state on the subject, is 
inadmissible as evidence of such alleged marriage in this state : People v. Perriman, 
72 Mich. 184. 
Proof of marriage in civil cases.See Shotivell v. Harrison, 22 Mich. 410. Proof by 
certificate when solemnized in another state : People v. Lambert, 5 Mich. 365. MARRIAGE LAWS. 
11 
copy of such record duly certified by such clerk, shall be 
received in all courts and places as presumptive evidence of 
the fact of such marriage. (See notes.) 
In civil cases, evidence of reputation is competent to prove marriage: Peet v. Peet, 
52 Mich. 464. It is important only as circumstantial evidence as to whether the parties 
themselves regarded each other as husband and wife: Cross v. Cross, 55 Mich. 280. 
Except in criminal prosecutions and cases of seduction, marriage may be proved by 
conduct and reputation, such as, that the parties lived together and raised a family, 
treated each other on all occasions as husband and wife, jointly signed papers in that 
relation, addressed each other as such, and were so reputed in the family and by their 
acquaintances. The law does not make marriage records the best evidence, and even 
where they exist some parol evidence is usually necessary to identify the parties in case 
of any controversy: Proctor v. Bigelow, 38 Mich. 282. See Leonard v. Pope, 27 Mich. 
146. Thus, in an action for enticing away the plaintiff's wife, direct proof of a formal 
marriage is not requisite. But evidence of cohabitation and repute, and of defendant's 
admissions that the plaintiff and his alleged wife were married, may be allowed to 
satisfy a jury : Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 532. The highest evidence of marriage is 
not required in suits not directly involving the marriage relation as a part of the main 
issue. 
But such evidence of cohabitation and reputation as would be sufficient to prove 
marriage in civil cases, would not be sufficient where it is sought to fix a charge of 
adultery on a party; Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 130. 
Proof of marriage in criminal cases-Dixon v. People, 18 Mich. 84. And when solemn- 
ized in other states: People v. Calder, 30 Mich. 85. And in actions for criminal conver- 
sation : Id. In prosecutions for adultery, see People v. Broughton, 49 Mich. 339. 
A marriage by a justice outside of his county, followed by cohabitation of the parties 
as husband and wife for fourteen years, held legal, in a criminal prosecution for 
adultery: People v. Girdler, 65 Mich. 68. 
Testimony of eye witnesses frequently more reliable than documentary evidence: 
People v. Perriman, 72 Mich. 184. 
In criminal cases, proof of marriage solemnized in another state cannot be proved by 
the certificate thereof: People v. Lambert, 5 Mich. 349-365. Nor by certificate when 
the marriage was in this state: People v. Bennett, 39 Mich. 208. LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF 
MARRIAGES. 
LICENSES AND REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGES. 
AN ACT for the requiring of a civil licence in order to marry, and the 
due registration of the same, and to provide a penalty for the violation 
of the provisions of the same. 
Persons in- 
tending mar- 
riage must ob-] 
tain license. 
§ 6222a. P. A. 1887, Act 128; Am. 1889, Act 256. Section 
1. The People of the State of Michigan enact, It shall be 
necessary for all parties intending to be married to obtain a 
marriage license from the county clerk of the county in which 
either the man or woman resides, and to deliver the said license 
to the clergyman or magistrate who is to officiate, before the 
marriage can be performed. If both parties to be married are 
non-residents of the State it shall be necessary to obtain such 
license from the county clerk of the county in which the 
marriage is to be performed. 
§ 62226. Seo. 2 Blank forms for marriage license and 
certificate, as also proper books of registration ruled for the 
items contained in said forms shall be prepared by the Secre- 
tary of State, and shall be furnished by him to the county 
clerk of the various counties of the State in quantities needed. 
The blank forms for license and certificate shall be made in 
duplicate and shall provide spaces for the entry of the follow- 
ing items, to wit: The full name, age, color, place of resi- 
dence, place of birth, occupation, and if known, the father's 
name, and mother's maiden name, of each of the parties to be 
married; the number of times either of the parties may have 
been previously married; the bride's maiden name, in case she 
is a widow; the date of the giving of the license; the signature 
of the county clerk; the date and place of the marriage; the 
names and residences of two witnesses to the marriage, and 
the certification of the officiating clergyman or magistrate, that 
the marriage contemplated by the license has been performed 
by him. And the Secretary of State shall furnish to the 
county clerks of the various counties of the State, blank forms 
of affidavit, containing the requisite allegations, under the laws 
of this State, of the competency of the parties to unite in the 
bonds of matrimony, and any party applying for license to 
Where non-res- 
idents must 
obtain license. 
Secretary of 
State to fur- 
nish forms, 
blanks. 
Form of 
license. 
Scretary of 
State to fur- 
nish to county 
clerks blank 
forms of 
affidavit. LICENSE AND CERTIFICATE. 
13 
marry, shall cause such an affidavit to be made and filed with 
the county clerk, as a basis for the issuing of the license; and 
such affidavit, together with the license shall be made a matter 
of record of said clerk's office. 
§ 6222c. Am. 1895, Act 243. Sec. 3. It shall be the duty 
of the county clerk, on application being made to him, to fill 
out the blank spaces of the license according to the sworn 
answers of the applicant, taken before him or some person 
duly authorized by law to administer oaths. Whenever it 
shall appear from said affidavit that the said applicant applies 
for a license for the marriage of a female who has not attained 
the age of eighteen years, then it shall be the duty of said 
county clerk to require that there shall first be produced the 
written consent of one of the parents of said female or of her 
legal guardian to the marriage of said female, and to the issu- 
ing of the license for which application is made, unless such 
female have no parent or guardian living. No license shall be 
issued by said county clerk in such cases until the said 
requirement is complied with. Such written consent shall be 
preserved on file in the office of said county clerk. If it shall 
appear that the parties are legally entitled to be married, the 
county clerk shall sign the license in certification of the 
fact that it is properly issued, and he shall make a correct 
copy thereof in the books of registration. For his services 
connected therewith he shall be entitled to a fee of fifty cents, 
to be paid by the party applying, and at the time of the issu- 
ing of the license. He shall give the license thus filled out and 
signed by him, together with the blank form of certificate, to 
the party applying for delivery to the clergyman or magistrate 
who is to officiate at the marriage. On the return of the 
license to the county clerk as hereinafter provided, with the 
certificate of the clergyman or magistrate that the marriage 
has been performed, he shall record in the book of registration 
in their proper places of entry the date and place of the mar- 
riage, the names and residences of two witnesses to the mar- 
riage and the name of the officiating clergyman or magistrate. 
All licenses and certificates so issued and returned shall be 
preserved on file in the office of the county clerk, and he shall 
as often as once in three months make a faithful report to the 
Secretary of State of all licenses and certificates issued and 
received by him. 
§ 6222d. Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the clergyman or 
magistrate, officiating at a marriage, to fill out the spaces of 
the certificate left blank for the entry of the time and place of 
the marriage, the names and residences of two witnesses, and 
his own signature in certification that the marriage has been 
performed by him. He shall separate the duplicate license 
and certificate and retain one-half for his own record, and he 
shall return the other half within ten days to the county clerk 
issuing the same. 
§ 6222e. Sec. 5. Any county clerk who shall refuse to 
give a license to persons properly applying and legally entitled 
to be married, or who shall violate any of the provisions of this 
County clerk 
to fill out 
blank spaces 
to license for 
marriage. 
When to de- 
mand written 
consent of 
parents. 
W ritten con- 
sent to be filed. 
Fees for ser- 
vices. 
To record li- 
censes in book 
of registra- 
tion. 
Duty of offi- 
ciating clergy- 
man or magis- 
trate. 
penaityfOr 
by°TOuntyact 
clerk. 14 
LICENSE AND CERTIFICATE. 
aot, shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be 
punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more 
than one hundred dollars, or in default of payment thereof by 
imprisonment in the county jail for a term of thirty days. 
§ 6222/. Sec. 6. Any clergyman or magistrate who shall 
join together in marriage parties who have not delivered to 
him a properly issued license, as provided for in this act, or 
who shall violate any of the provisions of this act, shall be 
adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a 
fine of one hundred dollars, or, in default of payment thereof, 
by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of ninety days, 
§ 6222j7. Seo. 7. Any person whose duty it shall be to 
return a marriage certificate to the county clerk, who shall 
neglect to return said certificate, shall be adjudged guilty of a 
misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding 
one hundred dollars or ninety days' imprisonment, or both, in 
the discretion of the court. 
§ 6222/i. Sec. 8. Any person applying for a marriage 
license who shall swear to a false statement therein, shall be 
guilty of perjury and shall be prosecuted therefor under the 
general laws of the State. 
Seo. 9. All reports of marriage, sent by the county clerks 
of the various counties of the State to the office of the Secre- 
tary of State, shall be preserved on file in that office, and a 
proper record thereof shall be made and kept. 
§ 6222/. Seo. 10. The record of any license to marry, or of 
any marriage certificate in any county clerk's office, or a certi- 
fied copy thereof, shall be prima facie evidence in any court 
or proceedings in this State, with the same force and effect as 
if the original were produced, both as to the facts therein con- 
tained and as to the genuineness of the signatures thereto. 
§ 6222Zc. Sec. 11. All other acts and parts of acts which 
are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. 
Penalty for 
violation by 
clergyman. 
Penalty for 
neglect to re- 
turn cer- 
tificate. 
False swear- 
ing in applica- 
tion perjury. 
Filing and 
recording of 
reports. 
Records of 
license prima 
facie evidence. 
Repealing 
clause. 
§ 6222/. Where parties about to marry represented to the clergyman that they have 
procured the license from the county clerk and it was on the way by mail. Held, that 
the clergyman was guilty of a violation of Act No. 128. P. A. 1887. 
The fact that one of the contracting parties was a bigamist and no legal marriage 
could be performed does not release the clergyman for performing the ceremony. Held, 
that the object of the act is sufficiently embraced in its title and the act is 
constitutional. 
Supreme court, March 6,1896. LAWS RELATIVE TO DIVORCE. 
DIVORCE. 
§ 6223. Rev. Stat. 1846, Chap. 84; Am. P. A. 1883, Act 24. 
Section 1. All marriages which are prohibited, by law on 
account of consanguinity or affinity between the parties, or on 
account of either of them having a former wife or husband 
then living, and all marriages solemnized when either of the 
parties was insane or an idiot, shall, if solemnized within the 
State, be absolutely void, without any decree of divorce or 
other legal process: Provided, That the issue of such mar- 
riage, except that contracted while either of the parties thereto 
had a former husband or wife living, shall be deemed legit- 
imate. 
§ 6224. Sec. 2. In case of a marriage solemnized when 
either of the parties was under the age of legal consent, if they 
shall separate during such non-age, and not cohabit together 
afterwards, or in case the consent of one of the parties was 
obtained by force or fraud, and there shall have been no sub- 
sequent voluntary cohabitation of the parties, the marriage 
shall be deemed void without any decree of divorce or other 
legal process. {See notes.) 
Marriages 
divorcethout 
Proviso. 
Idem. 
§ 6224. The legal age of consent is fixed by § 6209. The marriage, when one or both 
of the parties shall be under the legal age of consent, is voidable, but not void. It may 
be annulled by the mutual consent of both, or at the election of the party under age, 
but not at the election of the party of competent age. Upon the latter it is binding: 
People v. Slack, 15 Mich. 193. See § 6254. Voidable only : Bouker v. People, 37 Mich. 7. 
But will be void if the party under age withdraws and refuses to cohabit: People v. 
Bennett, 39 Mich. 209. 
As to what frauds (such as duress, pregnancy before marriage) will invalidate a mar- 
riage, or authorize a decree of nullity: Leavitt v. Leavitt, 13 Mich. 456-7. See Dawson 
v. Dawson, 18 Mich. 335; Smith v. Smith, 51 Mich. 607; Sissung v. Sissung, 65 Mich. 168; 
Harrison v. Harrison, 94 Mich. 559. 
The court granting a decree of divorce has the power to set it aside for fraud in its 
procurement, or want of jurisdiction, on the application of the party against whom it 
was obtained, even though the other party may have remarried and children may have 
been begotten : Carlisle v. Carlisle, 96 Mich. 128. 
Note.-Divorces cannot be granted by the legislature ; nor can it authorize the grant- 
ing of them in special cases not provided for by the general laws of the state : Const. 
Art. 4, sec. 26; Teft v. Teft, 3 Mich 67. 
Jurisdiction over divorce is purely statutory : Baugh v. Baugh, 37 Mich. 61; and not 
within the original cognizance of courts of equity: Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 145. 
Foreign divorces.-The fact that a divorce procured in another state is fraudulent, 
may be shown collaterally in this state: People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247. 
One who leaves Michigan temporarily to avoid legal process and stays in Indiana a 
year for the purpose of getting a divorce meanwhile, does not thereby acquire a resi- 
dence which will give the Indiana courts jurisdiction of his divorce proceedings. And 
notice of such proceedings, served on the wife in Michigan, need not be heeded : Reed 
v. Reed, 52 Mich. 117. 
An Indiana divorce cannot be impeached in a purely collateral civil action in Michi- 
gan by seeking to show that the residence of the complainant in the divorce suit was 
not such as to give the Indiana court jurisdiction: Waldo v. Waldo, 52 Mich. 94. In 
a collateral proceeding depending upon a divorce procured in another state, the court 
which granted it must be presumed to have had jurisdiction, and to have proceeded on 
the merits in accordance with the local laws: Id. 16 
DIVORCE LAWS. 
Suit may be 
annul void 
marriage. 
§ 6225. Sec. 3. When a marriage is supposed to be void, 
or the validity thereof is doubted, for any of the causes men- 
tioned in the two preceding sections, either party, excepting 
in cases where a contrary provision is hereinafter made, may 
file a petition or bill in the circuit court of the county where 
the parties, or one of them, reside, or in the court of chancery 
for annulling the same, and such petition or bill shall be filed 
and proceedings shall be bad thereon, as in the case of a petition 
or bill filed in said court for a divorce; and upon due proof of 
the nullity of the marriage, it shall be declared void by a 
decree or sentence of nullity. (See notes.} 
§ 6226. Sec. 4. When the validity of any marriage shall 
be denied or doubted by either of the parties, the other party 
may file a bill or petition in the manner aforesaid, for affirm- 
ing the marriage; and upon due proof of the validity thereof, 
it shall be declared valid by a decree or sentence of the court; 
and such decree, unless reversed on appeal, shall be conclusive 
upon all persons concerned. 
§ 6227. Sec. 5. When either party shall be sentenced to 
imprisonment for life in any prison, jail or house of correc- 
tion, the marriage shall be thereby absolutely dissolved, without 
any decree of divorce or other legal process, and no pardon 
granted to the parties so sentenced, shall restore such party to 
his or her conjugal rights 
§ 6228. Am. S. L. 1847, Act 105; 1848, Act 150; 1851, Act 
Sec. 6. A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be 
decreed by the circuit court of the county where the parties, 
Suit to affirm 
mamage. 
Sentence toim- 
fifeSdis™oivesOr 
marriage. 
Divorce from 
monyjorwhat 
decreed*aybe 
§ 6225. See § 6257 ; Leavitt v. Leavitt, 13 Mich. 452. 
A bill to annul a marriage for gross duress was sustained where th, marriage had 
never been recognized and complainant was a youth of eighteen whom defendant had 
brought before a justice, and frightened into marriage on the spot: Smith v. Smith, 51 
Mich. 607. 
§ 6228. Residence of parties, see § 6612. The complainant must be domiciled in 
this state: People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 254. A wife may acquire a domicil separate 
from her husband: Id. 263. 
Where one of the parties resides in this state and the other in another state, each 
state has authority to dissolve the marriage: Wright v. Wright, 24 Mich. 180; Van In- 
wagen v. Van Inwagen, 86 Mich. 333. 
The husband need not reside in Michigan two years before filing his bill for divorce 
when the desertion complained of is by the wife in another state : Colburn v. Colburn, 
70 Mich. 647. 
Omission to aver residence in county where bill is brought may be cured by amend- 
ment : People v. McCaffrey, 75 Mich. 115. 
Where a divorce is sought by the wife on other grounds than the granting of a prior 
divorce to the husband in another state; which fact he sets up in a cross-bill in bar to 
relief sought, the complainant is not required to answer such new matter, nor is the 
court ousted of jurisdiction to decree the payment of temporary alimony : Van Inwagen 
v. Van Inwagen, 86 Mich. 333. 
Bill or petition.-None but the husband and wife can be parties to a suit for divorce. 
Children and strangers cannot intervene : Baugh v. Baugh, 37 Mich., 59: Peck v. Uhe, 
66 Mich. 592. 
Under the R S., 1838, Title 7, chap. 2, complainant's signature to the affidavit of veri- 
fication at the foot of the petition was held to be a sufficient signing, etc , Johnson v. 
Johnson, Walk. Ch. 310. 
Bill dismissed on failure to establish either civil or common-law marriage: Rose v. 
Rose, 67 Mich. 619; Van Dusan v. Van Dusan, 97 Mich. 70. 
Process from our courts cannot be served beyond the state boundaries: Pratt v. Bank 
of Windsor, Har. Ch. 254; McEwan v. Zimmer, 38 Mich. 768. Nor is service beyond the 
jurisdiction of the court binding: Id. Formerly it was held that service of the sub- 
poena upon the keeper of the state prison, the defendant being confined therein, was 
sufficient: Johnson v. Johnson, Walk. Ch. 310. But see, present chancery rule 10. 
Affidavit of non-residence.-Sufficiency of, when no information and belief, etc.; if the 
affidavit tends to make out what is required as the basis for the order of publication 
to the satisfaction of the officer, the order will not be void for defect in the proof: 
Pettiford v. Zoellner, 45 Mich. 362. 
An order pro confesso, cannot be entered until proof of service of the subpoena is filed: 
Eaton v. Eaton, 33 Mich. 305. DIVORCE LAWS. 
17 
or one of them, reside, or by the court of chancery, on the 
application by petition or bill of the aggrieved party, in either 
of the following cases: 
First, Whenever adultery has been committed by any hus- 
band or wife; 
Second, When one of the parties was physically incompetent 
at the time of the marriage; 
Adultery. 
Incompetency. 
Opening proofs.-As to opening proofs and extending time to take testimony to a party 
who has caused vexatious delays, see McClung v. McClung, 40 Mich. 493. 
Appeals.-In all appeals the matter is heard in appellate court as if it had not been 
heard before, and the order made, is such as should have been made below: Haines v. 
Haines, 35 Mich. 143. An appeal lies from a decree granting a divorce, although it 
orders a reference to determine the amount of temporary alimony to be allowed: Shaw 
v. Shaw, 9 Mich. 164. But the decree cannot be ;moditicd in favor of the party not 
appealing: Hoff v. Hoff, 48 Mich. 281. 
An appeal by the wife, taken within the statutory period, from a decree of divorce 
granted to her deceased husband, will be entertained : Shafer v. Shofer, 30 Mich. 163. 
But the representatives of the deceased husband must be brought in before hear- 
ing: Id. 
On appeal from a decree of divorce, the record of a collateral proceeding, in which 
conveyances by the defendant were set aside, was sent up with the divorce record, but 
no appeal was taken from the collateral decree. Held, that nothing could be done with 
it: German v. German, 57 Mich. 256. 
A consent decree cannot be appealed from : Owen v. Gale, 75 Mich. 256. 
Subdivision 1.--Adultery.-See § 6261. In proceedings for divorce for the cause of 
adultery, inflexible adherence to the settled forms and practice prescribed for the 
attainment of justice in courts of equity, should be observed: Green v. Green, 26 
Mich. 440. 
The time, place, and circumstances or occasion of the act charged, and the name of 
the guilty participator, if known, must be set forth definitely, and with particularity 
and distinctness: Dunn v. Dunn, 11 Mich. 284; Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 20 Mich. 222; 
Bennett v. Bennett, 24 Mich. 482 ; Green v. Green, 26 Mich. 437 ; Randall v. Randall, 31 
Mich. 194; Herrick v. Herrick, 31 Mich. 298. An allegation that the defendant lived 
"in open and notorious adultery," naming the time and place and party with whom, 
etc., is sufficient: Marble v. Marble, 36 Mich. 386. 
A charge of adultery made after the parties have lived together many years, founded 
upon suspicious circumstances of which the complainant had notice at the time of 
marriage, is too late : Stuart v. Stuart, 47 Mich. 566. 
Amendments to the bill charging adultery must be sworn to in the same manner as 
the original bill: Green q. Green, 26 Mich. 437; Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 40. Facts 
proved but not alleged in the. bill are not to be made available by way of amendment: 
Green v. Green, supra. 
Proof of, etc.-Bishop v. Bishop, 17 Mich. 211. The adultery must be proved by evi- 
dence and not by scandal merely : Soper v. Soper, 29 Mich. 305. Reputation is not suffi- 
cient, but may be received in aid of and as incident to substantial proof: Marble v. 
Marble, 36 Mich. 386. 
The proof must be confined strictly to the issue. Proof of adulterous acts not alleged, 
cannot avail: Dunn v. Dunn, 11 Mich. 284; Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 20 Mich. 222; and 
cannot, in fact, be proved or considered: Bennett v. Bennett, 24 Mich. 482 ; Green v. 
Green, 26 Mich. 437 ; Randall v. Randall, 31 Mich. 194; Herrick v. Herrick, 31 Mich. 298, 
But the charge may be established by circumstantial evidence: Marble v. Marble. 36 
Mich. 386. And it will be presumed that licentious persons, holding and expressing 
loose and depraved notions in regard to the marriage relation, will commit such offenses 
as they have opportunity for, when consorting together: McClung v. McClung, 40 
Mich. 498. 
Proof by particeps criminis: Emmons v. Emmons, Walk. Ch. 534; Herrick v. Herrick, 
31 Mich. 298. Taking the testimony of children of tender age, as to their parents' guilt, 
is reprehensible : Kneale v. Kneale, 28 Mich. 344; Crowner v. Crowner, 44 Mich. 180. 
The evidence of a party to the suit, taken without the order of the court, cannot be 
regarded: Stuart v. Stuart, 47 Mich. 556. 
Proof of a single act is sufficient. But confessions alone will not establish a case of 
adultery: See §6260. Sawyerv. Sawyer, Walk. Ch. 52-3. 
Subdivision 3.-Sentenced for three years, etc., Johnson v. Johnson, Walk. Ch. 309. 
Subdivion 4.-Desertion.-What will amount to it: Porritt v. Porritt, 18 Mich. 420, 
424; Rudd v. Rudd,33 Mich. 101; Holmes v. Holmes, 44 Mich. 555. 
Desertion can exist only against the will and acquiescence of the deserted party ; sep- 
aration br consent cannot amount to it: Cooper v. Cooper, 17 Mich. 210; Porritt v. 
Porritt, 18 Mich. 424; Cox v. Cox, 35 Mich. 463. As to what will justify a separa- 
tion : Id. 
After a separation, by mutual agreement, nothing but an unconditional and entire 
resumption of the marriage relations can restore the parties to a position where a new 
separation could amount to desertion: Cooper v. Cooper, 17 Mich. 210. 
The desertion must continue without interruption for two full years, and up to the 
time of filing the bill. Time consumed in mutual consultations, deliberations and 
treaties for a resumption of the marriage relations, should not be counted: Rudd v. 
Rudd, 33 Mich. 101. The desertion must be proved substantially as alleged: Id. 
Divorce cannot be granted for desertion except on satisfactory proof: (1) That 
cohabitation has ceased; (2} that defendant intends desertion; and (3) that the separa- 
tion is against the will of complainant: Rose v. Rose, 50 Mich. 92. 18 
DIVORCE LAWS. 
Imprisonment. 
Third, When one of the parties has been sentenced to 
imprisonment in any prison, jail or house of correction, for 
three years or more; and no pardon granted to the party so 
sentenced, after a divorce for that cause, shall restore such 
party to his or her conjugal rights; 
Fourth, When either party shall desert the other for a term 
of two years; 
Fifth, When the husband or wife shall have become an 
habitual drunkard; 
Sixth, And the circuit courts may, in their discretion, upon 
application, ns in other cases, divorce from the bonds of matri- 
mony any party who is a resident of this State, and whose 
husband or wife shall have obtained a divorce in any other 
state. (See notes.) 
§ 6229. Am. Id., 1847; 1848, Id. Sec. 7. A divorce from 
bed and board forever, or for a limited time, may be decreed 
Desertion. 
Drunkards. 
Power of cir- 
cuit court. 
Divorce from 
bed and board, 
when may be 
decreed. 
Separation of married persons differs from desertion of one by the other; desertion, 
in Michigan, is wilful abandonment for two years without cause, and against the wish 
of the person abandoned, and it may even be charged upon the one who stays at home : 
Warner v. Warner, 54 Mich. 492. 
A wife who leaves her husband for cruelty, which she reasonably believes makes fur- 
ther residence with him unsafe, is not chargeable with desertion, but he is: Id. 
Where a husband and wife left his farm and went to reside with her parents, and 
afterwards separated, but proofs fail to show he went away intending to desert her, no 
case of desertion is made out: Dashback v. Dashback, 62 Mich. 322. 
Desertion by wife in another state need not continue two years after husband's 
removal to Michigan to entitle him to divorce, nor need he have resided here two years 
before filing his bill: Colburn v. Colburn, 70 Mich. 647. 
In this case the decree below, adjudging defendant guilty of desertion, is held to have 
been fully warranted, and is affirmed: Rathbun v. Rathbun, 76 Mich. 462. 
Where after living peaceably with her husband for 35 years, a wife left her home and 
went to California and remained, the husband made no effort to induce the wife to 
return, his bill for divorce on the grounds of desertion is properly dismissed: Wright v. 
Wright, 80 Mich. 572. 
Divorce, as for desertion, was granted a husband where his wife had left him against 
his protest, and in response to peremptory demands he had made provision for her and 
she had given him a release of claims on his property; and where, also, the parties were 
old and had been married only a month, and though there was no evidence of collusion, 
the case was undefended: Staffer v. Staffer, 50 Mich. 491. 
Subdivision 5.-Habitual drunkard.-One who has the habit of indulging in intoxi- 
cating liquors so firmly fixed that he becomes intoxicated as often as the temptation is 
presented by his being in the vicinity where they are sold, is an habitual drunkard 
within the meaning of this section: Magahay v. Magahay, 35 Mich. 210. To bring a 
case within this statute the defendant must have become an habitual drunkard after 
marriage: Porritt v. Porritt, 16 Mich. 141-2. Or, at least, the fact must have been kept 
concealed from the complainant: Id. 
The facts, even if true, that a wife is shown by the testimony not to be of the most 
refined character, and that she has not always been truly ladylike in her behavior, but 
at times, when in anger, has been guilty of profanity, and has not remonstrated with 
her husband as she ought, or rebuked him for using liquor to excess, furnish no adequate 
excuse for the abuse which he is shown to have heaped upon her in his drunken moods, 
which have been too frequent not to be habitual: Berryman v. Berryman, 59 Mich. 
605, 
Occasional intoxication is not habitual drunkenness in a woman any more than it is 
in a man: Meathe v. Meathe, 83 Mich. 150. 
Subdivision 6.-A decree of divorce obtained by one party in another state against 
the other residing here, whether valid or void, is cause for granting a divorce to the 
party residing here: Wright v. Wright, 24 Mich. 180. 
The circuit courts may, in their discretion, divorce from the bonds of matrimony any 
party who is a resident of this state, and whose husband or wife shall have obtained a 
divorce in another state, and may order the payment of alimony as in other cases: 
Van Inwagen v. Van Inwagen, 86 Mich. 333. 
Where a divorce is sought by the wife on other grounds than the granting of a prior 
divorce to the husband in another state, which fact he sets up in a cross-bill in bar to 
the relief sought, the complainant is not required to answer such new matter, nor is the 
court ousted of the jurisdiction to decree the payment of temporary alimony: Id. 
§ 6229. Extreme cruelty.-This grievance, when a cause for divorce, must be of a 
most aggravating nature, entirely subverting the family relations by rendering the 
association intolerable: Cooner v. Cooper, 17 Mich. 210. It is not confined to personal 
violence, or threats of bodily harm : Id.; Chaffee v. Chaffee, 15 Mich. 186-7. 
A long and continuous course of conduct which, without the fault of the other party, 
results in making the marriage relation unendurable, and in driving the latter from the 
home of the offender, is extreme cruelty: Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 45-6. So is the 
persistent circulation of false and slanderous reports derogatory to the wife's char- 
acter for chastity: Goodman v. Goodman, 26 Mich. 417. And so is a wife's habitual DIVORCE LAWS. 
19 
for the ground of extreme cruelty, whether practiced by using 
personal violence, or by any other means; or for utter deser- 
tion by either of the parties for the term of two years; and a 
like divorce may be decreed on the complaint of the wife, 
when the husband, being of sufficient ability to provide a suit- 
able maintenance for her, shall grossly or wantonly and cruelly 
refuse or neglect so to do. (See notes.} 
and persistent treatment of her husband in an offensive and opprobrious manner, accus- 
ing him in public and private of infamous conduct in violation of his marriage obliga- 
tions, and calling him by vile and vulgar epithets, etc., Whitmore v. Whitmore, 49 
Mich. 417. So is consorting with and showing or expressing preference for persons 
of loose morals and unchaste character of the opposite sex: McClung v. McClung, 40 
Mich. 493. And so is the communication of a venereal disease: Canfield v. Canfield, 34 
Mich. 519; Holthoefer v. Holthoefer, 47 Mich. 260. But the fact that a wife of unim- 
peached chastity is found to have such a disease, is not sufficient evidence that it was 
communicated by her husband: Id. 
Profane, obscene and insulting language, habitually indulged in towards a wife of 
refined feelings and sensitive nature, may be carried so far as to amount to extreme 
cruelty: Bennett v. Bennett, 24 Mich. 484-5. See Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 45-6; Good- 
man v. Goodman, 26 Mich. 417 ; Palmer v. Palmer, 45 Mich. 150; 54 Mich. 492; Whitacre 
v. Whitacre, 64 Mich 232. 
A single act of causeless violence is not sufficient: Briggs v. Briggs, supra. Nor are 
mutual wranglings and exhibitions of unruly temper: Cooper v. Cooper, 17 Mich. 210; 
Johnson v. Johnson. 49 Mich. 639; Morrison v, Morrison, 64 Mich. 53. Acts not amount- 
ing to: See Soper v. Soper, 29 Mich. 305; Cox v. Cox, 35 Mich. 461; Lapp v. Lapp, 43 
Mich. 287. As to when vile and indecent language will not amount to: Briggs v. Briggs, 
20 Mich 43; Holmes v. Holmes, 44 Mich. 555. As to harsh language and recriminatory 
charges: See Bishop v. Bishop, 17 Mich. 211. Neglect to look after household affairs: 
Bennett v. Bennett, 24 Mich. 484. And as to cruelty towards the children and other 
members of the household: Chaffee v. Chaffee, 15 Mich. 186-7. A husband cannot com- 
plain of cruelty when he is at the same time denying to his wife all consideration due 
to her as such: Holmes v. Holmes, 44 Mich. 555. Nor can either complain of violence 
in their quarrels, from which one suffers as much as the other: Soper v. Soper, 29 
Mich. 305. And See Hoff v. Hoff, 48 Mich. 281; Minde v. Minde, 65 Mich. 633. 
It is extreme cruelty to turn a wife and her daughter out of doors without cause, and 
to make their separation the condition of taking the wife back again: Friend v. 
Friend. 53 Mich. 543. 
It is extreme cruelty for a husband to wantonly neglect his wife in critical illness and 
to address her at such times in harsh and brutal language: Hoyt v. Hoyt. 56 Mich. 50. 
Mere irascibility and harshness are no ground for divorce, especially when purposely 
provoked by tantalizing conduct: German v. German, 57 Mich. 256. 
When specific acts of cruelty are not specified in the bill, no proof of such cruelty is 
admissible: Dashback v. Dashback, 62 Mich. 322. 
In case the court find the charges of cruelty made in the bill substantiated by the evi- 
dence, and grant complainant the relief prayed for: Taylor v. Taylor, 73 Mich. 266. 
When the husband deeds the homestead to his wife, and she refuses to cohabit, and 
finally drives him from the house and then rents it, a case of extreme cruelty exists: 
Menzer v. Menzer, 83 Mich. 319. 
It is extreme cruelty for the husband to compel his wife to do more work than she is 
capable of performing: De Zwaan v. De Zwaan, 91 Mich. 279. 
As to what constitutes condonation : Runkle v. Runkle, 96 Mich. 493. 
Where a bill for divorce charges both extreme cruelty and adultery, collusion cannot 
be inferred from the filing of a stipulation striking the latter charge therefrom: Hol- 
comb v. Holcomb, 100 Mich. 421. 
Where husband and wife lived together a few days after bill filed by husband, and 
then separated, the wife filing answer, charging drunkenness and cruelty, held, that the 
court did not lose jurisdiction by the subsequent cohabitation, nor was it a bar to 
divorce for cruelty : Tackaberry v. Tackaberry, 101 Mich. 102. 
Pleadings and proofs.-The specific acts of cruelty relied upon as cause for divorce, 
should be distinctly set forth in the bill. And must be proved as alleged. But evidence 
of cruelty is not confined to the acts charged; others tending to characterize those 
alleged, may be shown: Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 41; Bennett v. Bennett, 24 Mich. 482. 
A party coming into a court of equity, and asking to be released from the bonds of 
matrimony and its obligations, must come with clean hands, and must keep them clean, 
so far as relates to the procurement of testimony to make out his case : Van Voorhis 
v. Van Voorhis, 94 Mich. 60. 
Failure to support.-In a bill for a limited divorce on the ground of refusal to sup- 
port, an allegation charging the defendant with " inhuman and cruel treatment," and 
that " he had grossly, wantonly and cruelly refused and neglected to provide a suitable 
maintenance," etc., sets forth the cause with sufficient particularity. In such a case, it 
is not necessary to aver any cruel treatment, except what is involved in the gross, wan- 
ton and cruel neglect and refusal to support the wife, the defendant being of sufficient 
ability, etc. Under such averments, all those facts and circumstances tending to show 
that the refusal and neglect were gross, wanton and cruel, are admissible in evidence: 
Brown v. Brown, 22 Mich. 242. 
As to what acts will warrant a wife in leaving her husband and claiming support 
elsewhere: See Brown v. Brown, 22 Mich. 242; Randall v. Randall, 37 Mich. 574. 
Willingness to support his wife in his own home, is no defense to her right to have 
support elsewhere, when his treatment of her is such as to render it unsafe and 
improper for her to reside and cohabit with him: Brown v. Brown, 22 Mich. 242.J 20 
DIVORCE LAWS. 
Divorce from 
bond of mat- 
rimony, for 
same causes. 
§ 6230. Sec. 8. A divorce from the bond of matrimony 
may be decreed for either of the causes mentioned in the pre- 
ceding section, whenever, in the opinion of the court, the cir- 
cumstances of the case shall be such that it will be discreet 
and proper so to do. (See notes.) 
§ 6231. Am. P. A. 1887, Act 137; 1895, Act 202. Sec. 9. 
No divorce shall be granted unless the parties exhibiting the 
petition or bill of complaint therefor shall have resided in this 
State one year immediately preceding the time of exhibiting 
such petition or bill, or unless the marriage was solemnized in 
this State, and the complainant shall have resided in this State 
from the time of such marriage to the time of exhibiting the 
petition or bill; and when the causes for divorce occurred out 
of this State, no divorce shall be granted unless the complain- 
ant or defendant shall have resided within this State two years 
next preceding the filing of the petition or bill, and no proofs 
or testimony shall be taken in any cause until four months 
after the filing of such petition or bill for divorce, except where 
the cause for divorce is desertion, or when the testimony is 
taken conditionally for the purpose of perpetuating such testi- 
mony, nor shall any decree of divorce be granted in any case 
unless the defendant be domiciled within this State or shall 
have been domiciled herein at the time the cause for divorce 
arose, or unless the defendant shall have been personally 
served with process in this State, or with copy of the order of 
publication in said cause, or has voluntarily appeared in such 
action or proceeding. Where the defendant shall not be domi- 
ciled in this State or shall not have been domiciled herein at 
the time the cause of action arose, the plaintiff must prove 
either that the parties have lived together in this State as hus- 
band and wife or that the plaintiff has in good faith resided in 
this State for at least one year next preceding the commence- 
ment of the proceeding. (See notes.) 
In what cases 
bT^anted!to 
As to time of 
thestate.in 
In case persons 
ofstateedout 
A husband's obligation to support his wife, is to support her in his own family, and 
not elsewhere, unless his conduct towards her is %uch as to make it unsafe for her to live 
and cohabit with him: Randall v. Randall, 37 Mich. 563. And her coextensive obliga- 
tion is to render family services: Id. And the wife's right is to be supported in her 
husband's domicil unless she has lost it by her misbehavior: Snyder v. People, 26 
Mich. 109. 
As to failure to support, see Chaffee v. Chaffee, 15 Mich. 187. 
.An absolute divorce will be granted wife where proof shows the husband of "suffi- 
cient ability " to maintain her, but grossly and wantonly fails to do so: Dashback v. 
Dashback, 62 Mich. 322; Whitacre v. Whitacre, 64 Mich. 232. 
Habits of frugality not constituting failure to support: Runkle v. Runkle, 96 Mich. 493. 
Decree of separation.-As to decreeing a separation from bed and board, upon a bill 
for divorce from the bonds of matrimony: See Sawyer v. Sawyer, Walk. Ch. 53; Skill- 
man v. Skillman, 18 Mich. 458. 
§ 6230. The court, on review of the testimony, changed the decree of the circuit 
court for a separation from bed and board for two years, to an absolute one from the 
bonds of matrimony: Burlage v. Burlage, 65 Mich. 624. 
The decree below, dismissing bill, was reversed and absolute divorce granted, on 
ground of cruelty: Thompson v. Thompson, 79 Mich. 124. 
§ 6231. R. S. 1838, p. 337, sec. 6; Laws of 1842, Act 72, p. 116; 1844, Act 60, p. 74: Emmons 
v. Emmons, Walk. Ch. 532, and § 6228, and note. 
Where complainant avers she has been a resident of this state "for more than one 
year immediately preceding the filing of her bill of complaint," and a plea has been 
entered, but the averment has not been demurred to, the court has jurisdiction while 
the case is pending, and may grant and enforce temporary alimony: Filer v. Filer, 77 
Mich. 469. 
Time of taking proofs and testimony in any divorce suit: Dali/ v. Hosmer, 102 Mich. 
393. DIVORCE LAWS. 
21 
Idem. 
§ 6232. Am. 1887, Act 137. Sec. 10. No divorce shall be 
decreed in any case when it shall appear that the petition or 
bill therefor was founded in or exhibited by collusion between 
the parties; and the oath or affirmation administered to the 
complainant in swearing to such petition or bill shall, in addi- 
tion to all other legal requirements, recite the following: 
"And you do solemnly swear (or affirm) that there is no collu- 
sion, understanding or agreement whatever between yourself 
and the defendant herein in relation to your application for 
divorce.'' And no divorce shall be decreed in any case where 
the party complaining shall be guilty of the same crime or 
misconduct charged against the respondent. (See notes.) 
§ 6233. Sec. 11. A petition or bill for a divorce may be 
exhibited by a wife in her own name, as well as a husband; 
and in all cases the respondent may answer such bill without 
oath or affirmation. 
§ 6234. Seo. 12. Suits to annul or affirm a marriage, or 
for a divorce, shall be conducted in the same manner as other 
suits in courts of equity; and the court shall have power 
to award issues, to decree costs, and to enforce its decrees, as 
in other cases. (See notes.) 
Oathofcom- 
p ainanfc 
Bill or petition 
own name;han- 
swer without 
Suits, how con- 
ducted. 
§ 6232. Collusion.-The bill must allege on oath that the causes for divorce were not 
■committed with the consent, connivance, privity or procurement of the complainant, 
etc. Chancery Rule 95; Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 40. Hence, if any fact is introduced 
into the bill by way of amendment, the bill must be again sworn to, to meet this require- 
ment : Id. Or the amendment must be verified the same as the bill: Green v. Green, 
26 Mich. 437. 
As to collusion: See Sawyer v. Sawyer, Walk. Ch. p. 52; Emmons v. Emmons, Id., 
532. If collusion appears, a decree must be denied: People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 258; 
Porritt v. Porritt, 18 Mich. 425-6. Entering into arrangements and understandings 
between the parties to secure a divorce, immediately after the filing of the bill, is col- 
lusive and an attempted fraud upon the law: Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 45. Defendant's 
appearance entered for the purpose of enabling the complainant to obtain a decree 
speedily, is evidence of collusion: People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 248, 253. Cohabitation 
during the progress of proceedings for divorce, indicates collusion: Porritt v. Porritt, 
18 Mich. 425-6. If an answer is withdrawn, no decree should be granted without satis- 
factory evidence that the withdrawal was voluntary and not collusive: Leavitt v. 
Leavitt, 13 Mich. 455. 
_A party to a divorce suit is not estopped as to the main issue by a decree entered by 
his own procurement, since collusive divorces are unlawful: Friend v. Friend, 53 
Mich. 543. 
An agreement to accept $5 for all claims and alimony is collusive: Thompson v. 
Thompson, 70 Mich. 62. 
This section, 6232, is based on public policy, which forbids annulment of the marriage 
contract by agreement of the parties: Id. 
Requirement of oath denying collusion is mandatory: Ayres v. Gartner, 90 Mich. 380. 
When mandamus will issue to dismiss a bill for want of oath denying collusion: Id. 
Where original bill is verified, objection that amendment is not verified, is without 
force: Tackaberry v. Tackaberry, 101 Mich. 102. 
Objection on appeal that answer to cross-bill is not sworn to, is too late: Id. 
Where a bill for divorce charges tjpth extreme cruelty and adultery, collusion cannot 
be inferred from the filing of a stipulation striking the latter charge therefrom: Hol- 
comb v. Holcomb, 100 Mich. 421. 
An answer in a divorce suit, in the nature of a cross-bill filed under chancery rule No. 
123, must be verified in order to authorize a decree for the defendant, but, if not, it may 
be amended, where the proof shows an absence of collusion: Harrison v. Harrison, 
94 Mich. 559. 
Amendment to verification to answer so as to negative the existence of collusion, is 
within the discretion of the court: Daly v. Hosmer, 102 Mich. 392. 
When a decree is granted upon a bill denying collusion, a subsequent bill by the same 
complainant to set aside that decree for collusion, will not be entertained: Simmons v. 
Simmons, 47 Mich. 253. 
But a decree is not to be treated as void on the ground of collusion, until reversed: 
People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 249. 
Equally guilty, etc.-Where both parties are guilty of such condnct as is cause for 
divorce, neither should be allowed a decree: Hoff v. Hoff, 48 Mich. 281. 
§ 6234. Sawyer v. Sawyer, Walk. Ch. 48. 
Practice.-A divorce bill cannot be amended by substituting a prayer that the mar- 
riage be annulled: Schafberg v. Schafberg, 52 Mich. 429. 
Proofs bearing on the question of permanent alimony ought not to be taken until it 
has been determined by the court whether a divorce shall be decreed: Bea v. Bea, 53 
Mich. 40. 22 
DIVORCE LAWS.' 
Court may re- 
quire husband 
to pay expen- 
ses. 
Costs. 
§ 6235. Sec. 13. In every suit brought, either for a 
divorce or for a separation, the court may, in its discretion, 
require the husband to pay any sums necessary to enable the 
wife to carry on or defend the suit during its pendency, and it 
may decree costs against either party, and award execution for 
the same, or it may direct such costs to be paid out of any 
property sequestered, or in the power of the court, or in the 
hands of a receiver. {See notes.} 
Where a divorce bill does not ask for alimony and the decree does not award it, a 
motion to amend the decree by adding a reference to a circuit court commissioner to 
take proofs as to alimony, is properly denied as neither pleadings nor decree contain 
anything to which the subject matter of the motion is germane; the proper remedy in 
chancery, if there is any, is by supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review: 
Jordan v. Jordan, 53 Mich. 551., 
Appeal lies from an order in a divorce suit overruling a plea of no marriage: Cross v. 
Cross, 54 Mich. 115. 
Where a plea is overruled with leave to answer within a limited time, it seems that 
taking an appeal before the expiration of that period may be treated as an election to 
stand by the plea, and the appeal may be sustained accordingly: Id. 
The death of the complainant in divorce extinguishes the suit and the whole ground 
of action: Zoellner v. Zoellner, 46 Mich. 511. 
An unexcused delay of nine years, and until after the death of the other party, in 
attacking a decree of divorce, is fatal to a proceeding to set it aside for the purpose of 
obtaining an interest in decedent's estate : Id. 
Where no relief is sought not dependent on divorce there can be no decree after death 
has separated the parties : Wilson v. Wilson, 73 Mich. 620. 
The dismissal of a bill for divorce on the ground of the illegality of the marriage 
sought to be dissolved cannot affect the right of the complainant to file a second bill 
for the dissolution of a later legal marriage : Filer v. Filer, 77 Mich. 469. 
The failure of a complainant to appeal from a decree dismissing her bill for divorce 
will not preclude her from resisting the claim of the defendant to a decree declaring 
the marriage void for fraud practiced upon him, he having prayed for such affirmative 
relief in his answer: Nadra v. Nadra, 79 Mich. 591. 
Case remanded to adduce proofs as to defendant's and complainant's property: 
Reynolds v. Reynolds, 92 Mich. 104, 
A party coming into a court of equity, and asking to be released from the bonds of 
matrimony and its obligations, must come with clean hands, and must keep them clean, 
so far as relates to the procurement of testimony to make out his case: Van Voorhis 
v. Van Voorhis, 94 Mich. 60. 
A second wife, who becomes such in reliance upon a decree of divorce granted her 
husband, is entitled to notice of a petition by the first wife to vacate the decree: Car- 
lisle v. Carlisle, 96 Mich. 128. 
Where original bill is verified, objection that amendment, filed by stipulation, is not 
so sworn to, is without force: Tackaberry v. Tackaberry, 101 Mich. 102. e 
Objection first made on appeal that answer to cross-bill is not sworn to is too 
late: Id. 
§ 6235. Temporary alimony-expense money, etc.-If a wife has no means of her own, 
to support herself and defray the expenses of carrying on, or defending a suit for divorce, 
and her husband has property, the court will order him to advance suitable sums to her 
for those purposes: Story v. Story, Walk. Ch. 421; Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 6 Mich. 285. 
This section makes no mention of temporary alimony, but so far as the statute goes, it 
is only confirmatory of the common law which was acted on by our courts before there 
was any statute on the subject: Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, supra. The right to grant 
temporary alimony has always been recognized in divorce suits when the circumstances 
required it. And whether this § 6235 would include advances for support, or must be 
strictly confined to legal expenses, is not important, as such allowances have always 
been upheld when necessary to prevent a failure of justice : Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 
143-4. 
But an allowance will not be made to a wife where the bill does not bring her within 
any recognized equity: Lapp v. Lapp, 43 Mich. 287. Nor will temporary alimony and 
expense money be ordered unless it is shown by the bill, or by petition, that she has no 
property and that her husband has: Ross v. Ross, 47 Mich. 185; Story v. Story, Walk. 
Ch. 421. There is no presumption in Michigan that a wife has no property of her own: 
Ross v. Ross, supra. 
Affidavits denying the cause alleged, or defense set up by the wife, will not prevent an 
allowance. But they should be received to aid the court in the exercise of its discretion 
as to the amount of the allowance : Story v. Story, Walk. Ch. 421-2. 
Merely technical irregularities in the proceedings of the complainant in a divorce 
suit will not excuse non-compliance with and order to pay temporary alimony, or defeat 
its enforcement: Froman v. Froman, 53 Mich. 581. 
Temporary alimony is properly allowed even where the wife has independent prop- 
erty of her own, if in her application therefor she shows what her property is, and that 
her income from it is insufficient for her support: Rose v. Rose, 53 Mich. 585. 
An allowance of temporary alimony is not assignable, and it is against public policy 
for the wife to bargain it away in advance of receiving it: Jordan v. Westerman, 62 
Mich. 170. 
An order allowing complainant $8 per week as temporary alimony is held a reason- 
able one: Potts v. Potts, 68 Mich. 492. 
» The possession by a wife of non-productive property, as cited in Ross v. Griffin, 53 
Mich. 8, will not prevent the allowance of temporary alimony: Id. DIVORCE LAWS. 
23 
§ 6236. Sec. 14. After the exhibiting of a petition or bill 
in a suit to annul a marriage or for a divorce, whether from 
the bond of matrimony or from bed and board, the court may 
Court may pro- 
hibit restraint 
of liberty of 
wife. 
Where a husband informs his wife that ha will not pay temporary alimony awarded 
her by the court, a formal demand on her parr is unnecessary to lay the foundation for 
contempt proceedings: Id. 
Pending a decision as to the sufficiency of a plea of a prior adjudication, filed by a 
husband to a bill for divorce, the court has jurisdiction of the matter of allowance of 
temporary alimony: Filer v. Filer, 77 Mich. 469. 
Where a bill for divorce alleges a marriage out of the state, and acts of cruelty imme- 
diately following such marriage, without locating the place and where the cause of 
divorce occurred or inflection of dates, the court has a right to grant temporary alimony 
while the case is pending: Id. 
Case remanded for determination of alimony and expenses: Reynolds v. Reynolds, 
92 Mich. 104. 
The amount of the allowances and expense money must be confined to what is reason- 
ably necessary in each case: Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 144. When a husband's means 
are not sufficient to maintain his wife and family without the assistance of their labor, 
she should not receive an allowance so large as to enable her to live in idleness: Brown 
v. Brown, 22 Mich. 242. 
Reference may be made to a commissioner to ascertain and report as to the amount 
of a suitable allowance: Story v. Story, Walk. Ch. 421. 
The decision of the trial court as to the amount of temporary alimony to be allowed 
in a divorce suit, should be conclusive unless the discretion of the court in making the 
allowance has been abused: Froman v. Froman, 53 Mich. 581. 
The amount of temporary alimony to be allowed must be left to the discretion of the 
trial court, and the order therefor is not subject to appeal unless such discretion has 
been abused: Rose v. Rose, 53 Mich. 585: Rossman v. Rossman, 62 Mich. 429. 
A married woman may make herself chargeable with the value of services rendered, 
by an attorney, upon her employment to secure a divorce from her husband, and the 
husband is not liable for such services : Wolcott v. Patterson, 100 Mich. 227. 
On appeal.-Temporary alimony and expense money may be continued, or allowed to 
the wife up to the final determination of the cause on appeal: Bishop v. Bishop, 17 
Mich. 211. Allowed on appeal: See Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 6 Mich. 285; Chaffee v. 
Chaffee, 14 Mich. 463; Skillman v. Skillman, 18 Mich. 458; Cooper v. Cooper, 17 Mich. 
205, 211; McClung v. McClung, 40 Mich. 498-9. And damages may be allowed for vex- 
atious delays in paying it: Id. And see, in case of an appeal by the wife from a 
decree obtained by her deceased husband: Shafer v. Shafer, 30 Mich. 163. The allow- 
ance made at circuit for support, will not be increased in the supreme court without 
additional evidence: Goodman v. Goodman, 26 Mich. 417. 
But alimony pending an appeal is not a matter of course, nor of right, and will not 
be granted on the wife's appeal without showing that the appeal is reasonable and in 
good faith, and that an allowance is necessary to prevent a failure of justice and to 
prevent her from suffering: Ziegenfuss v. Ziegenfuss, 21 Mich. 414; Holthoeferv. Hol- 
thoefer, 47 Mich. 643. And may be regulated according to the behavior of the parties: 
Hoff v. Hoff, 48 Mich. 281. Or discontinued for the misconduct of the wife: Goldsmith 
v. Goldsmith, 6 Mich. 285. 
Costs of appeal allowed to wife, where husband was granted a divorce and had $25,000 
in property and wife was without means: Van Voorhis v. Van Voorhis.90 Mich. 276. 
Allowance of costs in the supreme court: See Chaffee v. Chaffee, 14 Mich. 463; Skill- 
man v. Skillman, 18 Mich. 458; Lapham v. Lapham, 40 Mich. 527; Stevens v. Stevens, 49 
Mich. 504. 
Costs in equity are not of absolute right; and in dismissing a divorce bill filed by a 
woman who could not prove a marriage, but with whom defendant had lived in inti- 
mate relations, both parties were left to pay their own costs: Cross v. Cross, 55 Mich. 
280. 
Costs were withheld from both parties on reversing a decree for divorce against a 
husband, where the latter had already been put to great expense: German v. German, 
57 Mich. 257. 
No solicitor's fees beyond what had been previously allowed was included in the costs 
awarded complainant in divorce, upon reversing a decree dismissing her bill on demur- 
rer, and directing it to be answered: Van Driele v. Van Driele, 58 Mich. 273. 
Appeal from allowance of temporary alimony..-The allowance of temporary alimony 
and? expense money at the circuit, being discretionary, an appeal does not lie therefrom: 
Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 144; Lapham v. Lapham, 40 Mich. 527; Cooper v. Mayhew, 40 
Mich. 528; Ross v. Ross, 47 Mich. 185. 
Execution-costs.-The issue of execution authorized by this § 6235, is only for the col- 
lection of costs-such costs are decreed: Haines v Haines, 35 Mich. 145. 
Payment of temporary alimony and expense money can be enforced only by process as 
for contempt: Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 145. These allowances do not come within 
the language of the § 6235, covering costs, and cannot therefore be collected by execu- 
tion : Id.; North v. North, 39 Mich. 67; Palmer v. Palmer, 45 Mich. 152. Bee Peltier v. 
Peltier, Har. Ch. 28. 
A defendant cannot be committed for contempt under § 7260, upon an ex parte show- 
ing of his non-performance of an order for the payment of temporary alimony and 
expense money. He must have an opportunity to be heard in his defense: Stellar v. 
Stellar, 25 Mich. 159. And cannot be committed unless there has been a demand of 
payment and refusal to pay: Brown v. Brown, 22 Mich. 299. 
An order of commitment for non-payment is appealable: Ross v. Ross, 47 Mich. 185. 
And it seems that such an order cannot be maintained if it was granted without a 
proper showing that the wife had no means of her own : Id. But the regularity of a 
committal for contempt in refusing to pay alimony will not be reviewed collaterally on 
an application for a writ of habeas corpus, if regular on its face: Matter of Bissell, 40 
Mich. 63. 24 
DIVORCE LAWS. 
at any time, either in term of vacation, on the petition of the 
wife, prohibit the husband from imposing any restraint on her 
personal liberty during the pendency of the suit. 
§ 6237. Sec. 15. The court may, in like manner, on the 
application of either party, make such order concerning the 
care and custody of the minor children of the parties, and 
their suitable maintenance, during the pendency of such suit, 
as shall be deemed proper and necessary, and for the benefit of 
the children. 
§ 6238. Seo. 16. Upon pronouncing a sentence or decree 
of nullity of a marriage, and also upon decreeing a divorce, 
whether from the bond of matrimony or from bed and board, 
the court may make such further decree as it shall deem just 
and proper, concerning the care, custody and maintenance of 
the minor children of the parties, and may determine with 
which of the parents the children, or any of them, shall 
remain. (See notes.) 
§ 6239. Sec. 17. The court may, from time to time after- 
wards, on the petition of either of the parents, revise and alter 
such decree concerning the care, custody and maintenance of 
the children, or any of them, and make a new decree concern- 
ing the same, as the circumstances of the parents, and the 
benefit of the children, shall require. (See notes.) 
§ 6240. Seo. 18. Whenever the nullity of a marriage, or 
a divorce from the bond of matrimony for any cause, excepting 
that of adultery committed by the wife, shall be decreed, and 
when the husband shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, 
and also upon every divorce from bed and board, the wife shall 
be entitled to the immediate possession of all her real estate, 
in like manner as if her husband were dead. (See notes.) 
§ 6241. Seo. 19. Upon every such dissolution of a mar- 
riage as is specified in the preceding section, and also upon 
every divorce from bed and board, the court may make a fur- 
ther decree for restoring to the wife the whole, or such part as 
it shall deem just and reasonable, of the personal estate that 
shall have come to the husband by reason of the marriage, or 
for awarding to her the value thereof, to be paid by her hus- 
band in money. (See notes.) 
§ 6242. Sec. 20. Upon every divorce for adultery com- 
mitted by the husband, and upon every divorce from bed and 
Careandmain- 
d'ren'during1111 
P°ptdencyof 
Orderinreia- 
decree11 final 
Decree may bs 
ntwSdecre'ed 
made. 
When wife en- 
reaiestateer 
Restoration of 
to wifealestate 
Trustees,when 
polnted.ap 
§6238. Upon a decree granted to the wife on the ground of cruelty, she is prima 
facie entitled to the custody of the children of tender age: Klein v. Klein 17 Mich. 518. 
See § 6294. 
Although the children may remain with the mother, the father's legal duty to them is 
to provide for their support; and as against the public and the children, he cannot 
throw off this duty: Courtright v. Courtright, 40 Mich. 633. 
Where a divorced woman, to whom the care, management, and maintenance of a 
daughter was decreed, remarried; the second husband is not liable for support of the 
child, nor could the wife make a contract with her second husband which would bind 
its father for the support of the child: Johnson v. Onsted, 74 Mich. 437. 
§ 6239. Divorced wife awarded the custody of her infant daughter because the father 
failed in bis agreement} made before divorce granted, to properly care for her: Flory 
v. Ostrom, 92 Mich. 622. 
§ 6240. See Johnson v. Johnson, Walk. Ch. 313, and § 6287. 
A husband and wife take as tenants by entirety, and not as Joint tenants, under a joint 
deed to both ; and the estate thus created, with the attendant right of survivorship, is 
not affected by a decree of divorce: Lewis's Appeal, 85 Mich. 340. 
§ 6241. Harrison v. Harrison, 49 Mich. 240. DIVORCE LAWS. 
25 
board for any cause, when any personal estate of the wife, or 
money in lieu thereof, shall be awarded to her, as provided in 
the preceding section, the court, instead of ordering the same 
to be delivered or paid into the hands of the wife, may order it 
to be delivered or paid into the hands of a trustee or trustees, 
to be appointed by the court, upon trust to invest the same, 
and to apply the income thereof to the support and mainte- 
nance of the wife, and of the minor children of the marriage, 
or any of them, in such manner as the court shall direct. 
§ 6243. Sec. 21. Such trustees shall also pay over the 
principal sum to the wife and children of the marriage, when 
ordered by the court, in such proportions, and at such times 
as the court shall direct, regard being had, in the disposition 
of the said income, as well as of the principal sum, to the situ- 
ation and circumstances of the wife and children; and the said 
trustees shall give such bonds as the court shall require, for 
the faithful performance of their trust. 
§ 6244. Seo. 22. Whenever the court shall think proper 
to award to the wife any of her personal estate, or any money 
in lieu thereof, in pursuance of the foregoing provisions, such 
court may require the husband to disclose on oath what per- 
sonal estate has come to him by reason of the marriage, and 
how the same has been disposed of, and what portion thereof 
still remains in his hands. 
§ 6245. Am. 1877, Act 91. Sec. 23. Upon every divorce 
from the bond of matrimony for any cause except that of 
adultery committed by the wife, and also upon every divorce 
from bed and board for any cause, if the estate and effects 
awarded to the wife shall be insufficient for the suitable sup- 
port and maintenance of herself and such children of the mar- 
riage as shall be committed to her care and custody, the court 
may further decree to her such part of the personal estate of 
the husband and such alimony out of his estate, real and per- 
sonal, to be paid to her in gross or otherwise as it shall deem 
just and reasonable, having regard to the ability of the 
husband and the character and situation of the parties, and all 
the other circumstances of the case. {See notes.) 
Duties of trus- 
boGnds.heir 
Husband may 
disciosTmf to 
oath 
Court may 
abmoenydecree 
§6245. See Sawyer v. Sawyer, Walk. Ch., 53, and Laws of 1843, Act 6, p. 7, subse- 
quently enacted. Practice in awarding alimony: Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 46. 
A decree for alimony vests no absolute right in the wife thereto: Perkins v. Perkins, 
10 Mich. 425. 
A bill for alimony merely, cannot be maintained: Peltier v. Peltier, Har. Ch. 19. 
Courts of equity have no inherent power, as such, to decree permanent alimony at all. 
The power is statutory and incident to the jurisdiction over applications for divorce. 
The statute prescribes the entire powers and regulations on the subject: Perkins v. 
Perkins, 16 Mich. 167. 
A recent statute, Act 152 of the Laws of 1873, seems now to provide for filing a bill for 
alimony and support merely, in certain cases of desertion and neglect by the husband. 
See the act, §§ 6291-3. 
A gross sum for alimony may be decreed: Hamilton v. Hamilton, 31 Mich. 606-8; 
Taylor v. Gladwin, 40 Mich. 234-5. And should be awarded in gross in preference to an 
annuity when there is reason to apprehend vexatious delays in payment of the latter: 
McClung v. McClung, 40 Mich. 498. When a gross sum is awarded, if the husband's 
property consists wholly in lands, it seems that he may be given his election to pay in 
money, or in lands to be set off under the supervision of a commissioner and confirmed 
by the court: Hamilton v. Hamilton, supra. 
As to the amount of the allowance when in gross, see Hamilton v. Hamilton, supra. 
When a husband's property and income are not sufficient to maintain his wife and 
family without the aid of their labor, she will not be entitled to an allowance so large 
as to enable her to live without exertion on her own part: Brown v. Brown, 22 Mich. 242. 26 
DIVORCE LAWS. 
When wife en- 
titled to 
dower. 
§ 6246. Am. S. L. 1850, Act 165. Sec. 24. When the mar- 
riage shall be dissolved by the husband being sentenced to 
imprisonment for life, and when a divorce shall be decreed for 
the cause of adultery committed by the husband, or for the mis- 
conduct or habitual drunkenness of the husband, or on account 
of his being sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three 
years or more, the wife shall be entitled to her dower in his 
lands in the same manner as if he were dead; but she shall not 
be entitled to dower in any other case of divorce. (See notes.) 
Seo. 25 and 26. Repealed P. A. 1877, Act 39, Sec. 1. 
§ 6247. Am. S. L. 1865, Act 255; P. A. 1877, Act 44. 
Sec. 27. In all cases where alimony or other allowance shall be 
decreed to the wife or children, the court may require sufficient 
security to be given by the husband for the payment thereof 
according to the terms of the decree, and upon the neglect or 
Security for 
payment of 
alimony. 
As to an allowance when the defendant has previously obtained a divorce in another 
state: Wright v. Wright, 24 Mich. 180. 
Alimony refused, where it appeared that the wife had already received from her hus- 
band a substantially due share of his property: Stevens v. Stevens, 49 Mich. 504. 
An allowance of alimony can be questioned only on appeal, and not collaterally: 
Taylor v. Gladwin, 40 Mich. 232. 
But it seems that a personal decree for alimony against a non-resident defendant who 
has not been served with process, and has not appeared in the suit, is of no effect: Seo 
Lawrence v. Fellows, Walk. Ch. 468; Outhwite v. Porter, 13 Mich. 540; McEwan v. Zim- 
mer, 38 Mich. 765; Booth v. Conn., etc., Ins. Co., 43 Mich. 299. 
Where a divorce bill does not ask for alimony and the decree does not award it, a 
motion to amend the decree by adding a reference to a circuit court commissioner to 
take proofs as to alimony, is properly denied, as neither pleadings nor decree contain 
anything to which the subject matter of the motion is germane ; the proper remedy in 
chancery, if there is any, is by supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review : 
Jordan v. Jordan, 53 Mich. 550. 
An allowance of temporary alimony is not assignable, and it is against public policy 
for the wife to bargain it away in advance of receiving it: Jordan v. Westerman, 62 
Mich. 170. 
A suit for divorce is not a proper proceeding in which to secure an accounting for the 
wife's property, which was her separate estate: Peck v. Peck, 66 Mich. 586; Letts v. 
Letts, 73 Mich. 139. 
§ 6246. A woman who obtains a divorce cannot be deprived, without her consent, of 
her right of dower: Friend v. Friend, 53 Mich. 543. 
" Extreme cruelty " is such misconduct as is contemplated by § 6246, and entitles a 
wife to dower in the lands of her husband on securing a divorce from him on that 
ground: Rea v. Rea, 63 Mich. 257. 
In Rea v. Rea, 53 Mich. 40, the alimony awarded the plaintiff was not intended to and 
did not interfere with her dower right in her husband's lands. A mortgage given on 
said real estate by the husband, to raise money to pay alimony, cannot be deducted from 
the value of said premises: Id. 
The right of a divorced wife to dower must be governed, as far as practicable, by the 
same rules and proceedings as if the husband were dead: Id. 
A wife who has obtained a divorce for adultery can thereafter maintain ejectment for 
dower in the lands of her husband, whether he be living or dead: Percival v. Percival, 
56 Mich. 297. 
The right of a divorced woman to dower becomes vested as soon as decree becomes 
final. Id. See Orth v. Orth, 69 Mich. 158. 
A wife entitled to dower on a divorce from her husband, is entitled to dower in the 
surplus arising upon a foreclosure sale under a mortgage executed prior to their mar- 
riage : Bowles v. Hoard, 71 Mich. 150. 
Consent decree a bar to any claim by the wife to dower. See Owen v. Yale, 75 Mich. 256. 
§ 6247. This section applies to permanent alimony only: Palmer v. Palmer, 45 Mich. 
152. 
Previous to the amendment of 1877 to this section, it was held that the court could not 
decree a lien on real estate for the payment of alimony: Perkins v. Perkins, 16 Mich. 
162. As to the mode of enforcing payment, see Id. 167-8. 
Where a decree giving the wife one-third of her husband's property for alimony per- 
mitted him to discharge it by setting off to her $10,000 in land, it was held that the lands 
should be estimated to her according to the value as shown by the proofs in the case, 
and not by a subsequent enhanced valuation: McClung v. McClung, 42 Mich. 53. 
Payment of permanent alimony is to be enforced by execution: Taylor v. Gladwin, 
40 Mich. 232. So, where after a divorce granted, a subsequent order is made for the 
payment of an allowance for the support of children, it is to be enforced by execution, 
and not by process as for contempt; North v. North, 39 Mich. 67. 
Proofs bearing on the question of permanent alimony ought not to be taken until it 
has been determined by the court whether a divorce shall be decreed: Rea v. Rea, 53 
Mich. 40. 
It seems that the injunction prohibiting a defendant in divorce from mortgaging his 
property, does not restrain him from mortgaging real estate aside from his homestead 
for the purpose of raising money to pay alimony: Froman v. Froman, 53 Mich. 581. DIVORCE LAWS. 
27 
refusal pf the husband to give such security, or upon his failure 
to pay such alimony or allowance, the court may award execu- 
tion for the collection of the same, or the court may sequester 
his real and personal estate, and may appoint a receiver thereof, 
and cause such personal estates and the rents and profits of such 
real estate to be applied to the payment thereof; and in case 
the real estate of the husband shall consist wholly or in part of 
wild and uncultivated lands, or any other unproductive estate, 
the court shall have power in its discretion to provide for the 
payment of such alimony or other allowance, by the sale of 
such lands or estate in such manner as the court shall direct; 
and that any circuit court in chancery shall have authority to 
review any decree of said court allowing alimony, on petition 
of either party, and may alter or amend such decree whenever 
such court shall from evidence become satisfied that any error 
occurred in estimating the amount of the property, at the date 
of such decree, of the husband decreed to pay alimony, and for 
any cause arising after the date of such decree. (See notes.) 
§ 6248. Seo. 28. After a decree for alimony or other 
allowance, for the wife and children, or either of them, and 
also after a decree for the appointment of trustees, to receive 
and hold any property for the use of the wife or children as 
before provided, the court may, from time to time, on the 
petition of either of the parties, revise and alter such decree, 
respecting the amount of such alimony or allowance and the 
payment thereof, and also respecting the appropriation and 
payment of the principal and income of the property so held 
in trust, and may make any decree respecting any of the said 
matters which such court might have made in the original 
suit. (See notes.) 
Sale of real es- 
mentof alp 
mony- 
Review of de- 
cree' 
for alimony, 
pe' 
An order for the payment of alimony is not such original process as need be served 
within the territorial limits over which a municipal court has jurisdiction: Edison v. 
Edison, 56 Mich. 185. 
A decree for alimony by a court with jurisdiction, cannot, if not appealed from, be 
impeached in a proceeding to reach the proceeds of goods fraudulently transferred by 
the defendant: Reeg v. Burnham, 55 Mich. 40; Storrs v. Storrs, 58 Mich. 55. 
Where the testimony shows a defendant to be worth from $10,000 to $15,000, which 
complainant helped to accumulate, held, that the sum of $4,500 awarded to her as per- 
manent alimony was not excessive: Berryman v. Berryman, 59 Mich. 606. 
Alimony awarded plaintiff in the case of Rea v. Rea, 53 Mich. 40, was not intended to 
and did not interfere with her dower right in her husband's lands. A mortgage given 
on real estate by the husband to raise money to pay alimony cannot be deducted from 
the premises before the assignment of such dower: Rea v. Rea, 63 Mich. 257. 
Where the proofs show that, at about the time a bill for divorce was filed, the husband 
was the owner of several parcels of land of considerable value, and was possessed of 
considerable personal property, and of an interest in his father's estate, worth at least 
$7,000, an award of $2,000 permanent alimony is reasonable: Reed v. Reed, 86 Mich. 600. 
§ 6248. Modifying decree as to allowance, etc.: See Brown v. Brown, 22 Mich. 246; 
Perkins v. Perkins, 10 Mich. 426. 
This section authorizes the court to change a decree for alimony only on new facts 
thereafter transpiring, and when they are of such a character as to make it necessary 
to suit the new state of facts. It was not designed to affect the right of appeal, or to 
give the court power to review, reverse or modify its own decrees: Perkins v. Perkins, 
12 Mich. 456; Jordan v. Westerman, 62 Mich. 179. 
A decree awarding the custody of a child to its mother, and a weekly allowance for 
its support, will not be subsequently modified upon a state of facts existing at the time 
of rendering the decree and then known to the petitioning party. Nor will it be changed 
when no new facts or change of circumstances upon which to found such alteration 
are set forth: Chandler v. Chandler, 24 Mich. 176. 
An order opening a decree for permanent alimony for review and modification, is 
interlocutory and not appealable : Perkins v. Perkins, 10 Mich. 425. But an order or 
decree made under the provisions of this § 6248, modifying the original decree, is final 
and appealable: Chandler v. Chandler, 24 Mich. 176. 28 
DIVORCE LAWS. 
§ 6249. Sec. 29. A divorce for the cause of adultery com- 
mitted by the wife, shall not effect the legitimacy of the issue 
of the marriage, but the legitimacy of such children, if ques- 
tioned, may be determined by the court upon the proofs in the 
cause; and in every case, the legitimacy of all children 
begotten before the commencement of the suit shall be pre- 
sumed until the contrary be shown. 
§ 6250. Sec. 30. Upon the dissolution of a marriage on 
account of the non age, insanity or idiocy of either party, the 
issue of the marriage shall be deemed to be in all respects the 
legitimate issue of the parent who, at the time of the marriage, 
was capable of contracting. 
§ 6251. Sec. 31. When a marriage is dissolved on account 
of a prior marriage of either party, and it shall appear that the 
second marriage was contracted in good faith, and with the 
full belief of the parties that the former wife or husband was 
dead, that fact shall be stated in the decree of divorce or 
nullity; and the issue of such second marriage, born or 
begotten before the commencement of the suit, shall be 
deemed to be the legitimate issue of the parent who, at the 
time of the marriage, was capable of contracting. 
§ 6252. Sec. 32. Repealed P. A. 1883, Act 24. 
§ 6253. Seo. 33. If any persons, after being divorced from 
the bond of matrimony for any cause whatever, shall cohabit 
together, they shall be liable to all the penalties provided by 
law against adultery. 
§ 6254. Am. S. L. 1847, Act 105; 1848, Act 150. Sec. 34. 
A bill to annul a marriage on the ground that one of the parties 
was under the age of legal consent, may be exhibited by the 
parent or guardian entitled to the custody of such minor; or 
by the next friend of such minor; but in no case shall such 
marriage be annulled on the application of a party who was of 
the age of legal consent at the time of the marriage, nor when 
it shall appear that the parties, after they had attained the age 
of consent, had freely cohabited as man and wife. (See notes.) 
§ 6255. Sec. 35. A bill to annul a marriage on the ground 
of insanity or idiocy, may be exhibited by any person admitted 
by the court to prosecute as the next friend of such idiot or 
1 u n ati o. (See notes.) 
§ 6256. Seo. 36. The marriage of a lunatic may be also 
declared void, upon the application of the lunatic, after the 
restoration of reason; but, in such case, no sentence or nullity 
shall be pronounced, if it shall appear that the parties freely 
cohabited together as husband and wife, after the lunatic was 
restored to a sound mind. 
§ 6257. Seo. 37. No marriage shall be annulled on the 
ground of force or fraud, if it shall appear that, at any time 
Legitimacy of 
children in 
case of adul- 
tery. 
Legitimacy of 
cases of non- 
age, etc. 
Legitimacy in 
case of former 
husband or 
wife living. 
Cohabitation 
after divorce, 
how punished 
Who may ex- 
hibit bill to 
annul mar- 
riage, in case 
of non-age. 
In case of 
idiot or luna- 
tic, who may 
exhibit bill. 
When lunatic 
may exhibit 
bill, and when 
nullity not to 
be decreed. 
When nullity 
not to be de- 
.creed in case 
of force or 
/raud. 
§ 6254. See §§ 6209, 6224: People v. Slack, 15 Mich. 201. 
§ 6255. Insanity as a cause, etc., Teft v. Teft, 3 Mich. 68. 
§ 6257. See 6224, 6225, 6234: Leavitt v. Leavitt, 13 Mich. 457. 
A bill to annul a marriage for gross duress was sustained where the marriage had 
never been recognized and complainant was an unworldly youth of eighteen whom 
defendant had brought before a justice on a charge of bastardy and who, though pro- 
testing his innocence, had been frightened by the justice into a marriage on the spot: 
Smith v. Smith, 51 Mich. 607. 
In construing § 6257 of How. Stat., see Sissung v. Sissung, 65 Mich. 168. DIVORCE LAWS. 
29 
before the commencement of the suit, there was a voluntary 
cohabitation of the parties as husband and wife. (See notes.) 
§ 6258. Seo. 38. If there shall be any issue of a marriage, 
annulled on the ground of force or fraud, the court shall decree 
their custody to the innocent parent, and may also decree a 
provision for their education and maintenance out of the estate 
and property of the guilty party. 
§ 6259. Sec. 39. A suit to annul a marriage, on the 
ground of the physical incapacity of one of the parties shall 
only be maintained by the injured party, against the party 
whose incapacity is alleged; and shall, in all cases, be brought 
within two years from the solemnization of the marriage. 
§ 6260. Am. P. A. 1883, Act 155. Sec. 40 [39]. No decree 
of divorce shall be made solely on the declarations, confessions, 
or admissions of the parties, but the court shall require other 
evidence of the facts alleged in the bill for that purpose, but 
either party may, if be or she elect, testify in relation to such 
facts: Provided, however, That the testimony of either party 
to the action shall be taken only in open court, and that such 
testimony shall not be received in support or in defense of a 
charge of adultery. (See notes.) 
§ 6261. Sec. 41. In any suit brought for a divorce on the 
ground of adultery, although the fact of adultery be estab- 
lished, the court may deny a divorce in the following cases: 
First, When the offense shall appear to have been committed 
by the procurement, or with the connivance of the* com- 
plainant; 
Second, When the offense charged shall have been forgiven 
by the injured party, and such forgiveness be proved by 
express proof, or by the voluntary cohabitation of the parties, 
with the knowledge of the offense; 
Third, When there shall have been no express forgiveness, 
and no voluntary cohabitation of the parties, but the suit shall 
not have been brought within five years after the discovery by 
the complainant of the offense charged. (See notes.) 
Issue of mar- 
riage annulled 
on account of 
force or fraud. 
For physical 
incapacity, 
suit to be 
brought with- 
in two years. 
Decree not to 
be made on 
confession. 
Parties may 
testify. 
Proviso. 
In case of 
adultery, court 
may deny di- 
vorce in cer- 
tain cases. 
As to con- 
nivance. 
As to cohabi- 
tation. 
Time suit to be 
brought. 
§6260. Not granted on confessions merely: Sawyer v. Sawyer, Walk. Ch. 52-3. But 
confessions, when corroborated, may be received: Id. See also Dawson v. Dawson, 
18 Mich. 335. Nor by consent: Robinson v. Robinson, 16 Mich. 79; without evidence: 
Id. Uncorroborated declarations and confessions of a particeps criminis, not suffi- 
cient: Emmons v. Emmons, Walk. Ch. 534. 
As to evidence, See § 6228, subdivision 1, note. Testimony drawn out by leading 
questions, unsatisfactory: Richards v. Richards, 48 Mich. 530. See also chancery rule 
99, and prior to the amendment of 1883 to this § 6260, Hamilton v. Hamilton, 37 Mich. 
605-6; Stuart v. Stuart, 47 Mich. 556. 
The guardian of an infant defendant in bill to annul a marriage, cannot bind her by 
his admission that she procured the marriage by fraud: Cooper v. Mayhew, 40 Mich. 528. 
Physicians cannot testify in a divorce suit to what they have found out by compulsory 
examination of a party thereto: Page v. Page, 51 Mich. 89. 
A circuit court commissioner, in taking the testimony of parties to a divorce suit, can 
refuse to take anything which is grossly improper if he is left to act in the absence of 
the judge: Id. 
Where the record in a divorce suit contained evidence that was grossly improper and 
ought, in the discretion of the trial judge, to have been rejected, it was stricken out by 
the supreme court and the case was heard on what remained: Id. 
A woman claiming to be married, and seeking a divorce, cannot be examined as a 
party except in open court, without defendant's consent, whether she is really his wife 
or not: Cross v. Cross, 55 Mich. 280. 
§6261. Condonation of the alleged cause of divorce, defeatsit: Porritt v. Porritt, 
18 Mich. 425-6. 
Subdivision 3.-Eighteen years' delay in suing a husband for support, where the wife 
is living apart from him, is fatal to the suit, even if the wife originally left him for 
cause: Reed v. Reed, 52 Mich. 117. 30 
DIVORCE LAWS. 
Court may de- 
thoughcfivor'ce 
boar(ibbe Sot 
decreed. 
§ 6262. Sec. 42. In case of an application for a divorce 
from bed and board, although a decree for such divorce be not 
made, the court may make such order or decree for the sup- 
port and maintenance of the wife and children, or any of them, 
by the husband, or out of his property, as the nature of the 
case may render suitable and proper. (See notes.) 
§ 6263. Sec. 43. When a decree of divorce from bed and 
board, forever, or for a limited time, shall have been pro- 
nounced, it may be revoked at any time thereafter, under such 
regulations and restrictions as the court may impose, upon the 
joint application of the parties, and their producing satisfac- 
tory evidence of their reconciliation. 
§ 6263a. Added 1887, Act 137. Sec. 44. In all suits for 
divorce, if any of the testimony in the case is taken before a 
circuit court commissioner, or by stipulation before any other 
officer, it shall be the duty of such commissioner, or other 
officer, to ask of each and every witness sworn by and before 
him in such cause the following question [questions] which 
shall be reduced to writing in the testimony: "Do you know 
of any fact, matter or circumstance, which will in any way 
tend to weaken complainant's case for divorce? If so, state 
the same particularly and fullyand the answer of the wit- 
ness to such question shall be reduced to writing by the said 
commissioner, or other officer, verbah'm as far as possible, and 
the question and answer shall be returned to the court with 
the other testimony in the case. 
§ 62636. Added Id. Sec. 45. Every bill of complaint 
filed shall set forth the names and ages of all children of the 
marriage, and when there are children under fourteen years of 
age a copy of subpoena issued in the cause shall be served 
upon the prosecuting attorney of the county where suit is 
commenced, and it shall be the duty of said prosecuting attor- 
ney to enter his appearance in said cause, and when, in his 
judgment, the interests of said children or the public good so 
require, he shall introduce evidence and appear at the hearing 
and oppose the granting of a decree of divorce. For every 
case which the prosecuting attorney contests by and with the 
consent of the court he shall receive the sum of five dollars, to 
be paid by the county treasurer upon the certificate of the 
circuit judge that such services have been performed: Pro- 
vided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed as 
preventing prosecuting attorneys or their partners from acting 
as solicitors or counsel for either party to the suit. And in 
case a prosecuting attorney shall be in any way interested as 
solicitor or counsel for either of said parties it shall be the 
Decrees for di- 
IndCboarTmay 
be revoked. 
when certain 
ahaUbTasked 
testimSfy 
what bin of 
shaifsetnt 
forth. 
in case of 
iiV^rosec^b01 
ing attorney to 
Compensation 
attorneyCUtinff 
Proviso. 
§ 6262. Equity has no jurisdiction in case of a bill filed for alimony merely: Peltier 
v. Peltier, Har. Ch. 19. See §§ 6291-3. 
As to allowing alimony where a divorce a mensa is denied. See Chaffee v. Chaffee, 15 
Mich. 184; Skillman v. Skillman, 18 Mich. 458; Cooper v. Cooper, 17 Mich. 205; Bishop v. 
Bishop, 17 Mich. 211. 
A bill for the support of the wife, separate from the husband, will only be sustained 
when the reasons for it are imperative. If from the evidence the court is satisfied the 
difficulties between the parties are not serious, the bill will be dismissed, especially 
where there are young children for whom they ought to provide a home: Davison v. 
Davison, 46 Mich. 151. 
§ 6263b. As to duties of prosecuting attorney, where there are children under four- 
teen years of age, and payment of fee therefor: See Willcox v. Hosmer, 83 Mich. 1. DIVORCE LAWS. 
31 
duty of the court to appoint some reputable attorney to per- 
form the services of prosecuting attorney, as provided in this 
act, who shall receive the compensation provided for such 
service. (See notes.) 
§ 6263c. Added Id. Sec. 46. The court granting a decree 
of divorce may provide in such decree that the party against 
whom any divorce is granted shall not marry again within 
such time as shall be fixed by the court, which time shall be 
set out in the decree: Provided, Thai such time shall not 
exceed the period of two years from the time such decree is 
granted. And in case any person shall marry contrary to the 
time set out in such decree said party shall be deemed to have 
committed the crime of bigamy and shall be subject to the 
pains and penalties therefor. 
Court may fix 
which"emar- 
not 
Proviso as to 
and penalty0 
for violation, SUGGESTIONS TO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND MIN- 
ISTERS OF THE GOSPEL IN REGARD TO THE 
SOLEMNIZATION AND RETURN OF 
MARRIAGES IN MICHIGAN. 
A thorough knowledge of the law concerning the solemnization and 
return of marriages in Michiagn is necessary for the proper performance 
of the duties of persons authorized to solemnize marriages. The follow- 
ing remarks call attention to some of the more important features of the 
law, which, as shown by experience, are most likely to be disregarded. 
Jurisdiction. While any minister of the gospel who has been ordained 
according to the usages of his denomination, and whether a resident of the 
State or not, has the right to solemnize marriages in any part of the 
State, it should be remembered that justices of the peace can exercise 
such power only in the counties in which they were chosen. 
No marriage ceremony should under any circumstances be performed 
without a license, properly issued by the county clerk. It is necessary 
also that the license be issued by the clerk of the county in which either 
the man or the woman resides, or, in the case of non-residents, by the 
clerk of the county in which the marriage is performed. The penalty for 
{jerforming a marriage ceremony without the warrant of a properly issued 
ioense is a tine of one hundred dollars, or, in default of payment thereof, 
imprisonment in the county jail for a term of ninety days. The license 
to marry can only be procured from the several county clerks, but the 
affidavit necessary to procure the same may be made before any person 
authorized to administer oaths, and blank affidavits can be had from any 
county clerk or from the office of the Secretary of State. 
No marriage should be performed in which either of the parties is 
under legal age. The legal age of marriage is for males eighteen (18) 
years, and for females sixteen (16) years. Marriages in which one or 
both of the parties are below legal age are not necessarily void, but are 
voidable, and the clergyman or magistrate who performs the ceremony in 
such a case is, upon conviction, liable to imprisonment in the county jail 
for not more than one year, to a fine of not less than fifty nor more than 
five hundred dollars, or to both such fine and imprisonment. County 
clerks arc instructed not to issue licenses to persons under the legal age, 
but occasionally such licenses are issued. The clergyman or magistrate 
to whom they are presented should refuse to perform the ceremony, since 
the county clerk cannot authorize him to perform an unlawful act. 
Neither is the consent of a parent or guardian to the marriage of a female 
under eighteen years of age, as required by public acts eighteen hun- SUGGESTIONS. 
33 
dred ninety-five, act two hundred forty-three, to be taken as consent to 
the performance of a marriage ceremony in which the bride is not of the 
full age of sixteen years. Such parental consent applies only to females 
between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years. 
The consent of a parent or of the legal guardian must have been filed 
with the county clerk if the bride be under the age of eighteen years. A 
place is now provided on each license for the insertion of a statement by 
the county clerk to the effect that the law has been complied with in this 
respect. 
Return duplicate certificates promptly to the county clerk within ten 
days after the ceremony, as required by law. Neglect to do so renders the 
clergyman or magistrate offending liable to a fine of not to exceed one 
hundred dollars, or to ninety days imprisonment, or to both fine and 
imprisonment. Persons married should take pains to ascertain, by 
inquiry at the county clerk's office within a reasonable time, that the per- 
son who performed the ceremony has complied with the law. 
Be particular to require the signatures and places of residence of 
two (2) witnesses, and also to sign your proper official title, as clergyman, 
or justice of the peace, in certifying to the performance of the ceremony. 
Copies of the pamphlet containing the laws relating to marriage can be 
obtained by application at the office of the Secretary of State.