- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
BANKERS TRUST CO. v. HUMBER
Supreme Court of Michigan.
Jun 29, 1933
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
CLARK, J.
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 American State 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.
x
Alert
Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.