¶1held that the wife was a proper party to a bill filed by a husband to protect the homestead; and that if the case made by the bill had shown the mortgaged premises to be a homestead as defined by law, the decree of the Court below would have been affirmed. The case, however, was defectively stated in this: — that the bill did not aver that the value of the premises, claimed as a homestead, did not exceed the sum of $1,500. The Court therefore reversed the decree; but as the proceedings in other respects seemed unexceptionable, the case was remanded, with leave to the complainants to amend their bill.
19 Mich. 96
Shoemaker v. Gardner
Decided July 12, 1869
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1869-07-12
Appeal in Chancery from Berrien Circuit. In November, 1861, William Shoemaker, executed a mortgage on premises then occupied by him and his family, consisting of his wife and children, as a homestead. His wife did not join in the mortgage. This mortgage was foreclosed and the premises sold„under the decree to Davidson. Gardner, by whom proceedings were commenced to obtain possession of the premises.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1888
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1869-07-12
View the full empirical analysis of this case →