Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 Mich. 66

McGonegal v. McGonegal

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1881

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1881-04-27

<p>Divorce for drunkenness — Costs on affirmance in doubtful cases.</p> <p>Where the appellate court is in doubt what decree ought to have been made in a divorce case, a decree dismissing the bill will not be disturbed, especially where the evidence bearing most strongly against the defendant is of occurrences which took place several years before.</p> <p>Costs and other allowance denied in such a case, though the wife was the successful party.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1881-04-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2018

4 state decisions

1018811890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cooley, J.

¶1The bill in this case was filed to obtain a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the ground of the habitual drunkenness of the defendant. The circuit judge was of opinion that the case was not made out, and dismissed the bill.

¶2The ev dence in the record is not such that any court can feel entirely confident what decree ought to be made; but the circuit judge had better opportunities than we have to judge of the relative credibility of witnesses-; and we are not inclined under such circumstances to reverse his decree in a case, of doubt. And we are the less disposed in this case for the reason that the evidence which bears most strongly against defendant is of occurrences which took place several years ago.

¶3The decree will therefore be affirmed, but without costs or other allowances.

The other Justices concurred.
/46/mich/66 · .json · Public domain