Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 Mich. 162

Nicholas v. Nicholas

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1883

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1883-02-27

<p>Limorce — Affirnumce.</p> <p>Where a decree oí divorce granted to the wife rests wholly on the testimony, an appellate court ought not to reverse it unless convinced that it must have reached a different conclusion'if it had been in the place of the lower court and had its opportunities for deciding correctly.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1883-02-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1945

12 state decisions

401883189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Graves, C. J.

¶1The view to be taken of this case depends exclusively on the testimony, and it would serve no useful purpose to write out a discussion on it. Scattered through the large record there are many traces of truth and of untruth, and numerous instances of coloring and of exaggeration. There is much to believe and much to disbelieve, and the case is one of those where the decision of the judge exercising primary jurisdiction on matters of fact ought not to be overruled by a court of appeal except upon clear and satisfactory grounds. The. appellate tribunal ought to be fully persuaded that it must have reached a different conclusion had it occupied the position of the court appealed from and been favored with all the advantages of that court for judging rightly.

¶2Acting on this idea of what is proper it is our duty to affirm the decree.

Cooley and Marston, JJ. concurred.
/50/mich/162 · .json · Public domain