74 Mich. 437 | Mich. | 1889
In this case Ida B. Onsted was divorced from her husband, the defendant, on February 13, 1874, and by the decree she obtained was given the ■care, management, and maintenance of their child, a little girl then about three years old. Ida married the plaintiff in September, 1874 ,who immediately took her and the ■child to his home, and has cared for the child as he would his own ever since, with a full knowledge of the provisions of the decree between his wife and the defendant. It does not appear that in her suit for divorce .Mrs. Onsted either asked for or obtained any order for •cither temporary or permanent alimony. Mr. Onsted
We think this direction was right, and the judgment, must be affirmed. There was no contract, either express, or implied, under the testimony given, made by the-defendant, under which he could be held liable for the child's support to the plaintiff; neither could the wife, under the facts stated, make any contract with the husband, Johnson, which would bind Onsted fór the child's support without his consent. Husband v. Husband, 67 Ind. 583; Schouler, Dom. Rel. 322.