History
  • No items yet
midpage
Bankers Trust Co. v. Humber
1933 Mich. LEXIS 952
| Mich. | 1933
|
Check Treatment

From dismissal of judgment creditor's bill plaintiff has appealed.

The facts will be implied from statement of the question which is: May a creditor of the husband alone have right by appropriate process to seize rents and income of entireties property? The answer is "No," on the authority of AmericanState Trust Co. v. Rosenthal, 255 Mich. 157, in which earlier decisions are discussed.

The facts do not make a case where the husband has placed funds or property in an entireties estate in fraud of his creditors, so Morse v. Roach, 229 Mich. 538; Lemerise v.Robinson, 241 Mich. 528, and like cases are not in point.

Affirmed, with costs.

McDONALD, C.J., and POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred. *Page 73

Case Details

Case Name: Bankers Trust Co. v. Humber
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 29, 1933
Citation: 1933 Mich. LEXIS 952
Docket Number: Docket No. 108, Calendar No. 37,158.
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.