Braymer v. Overton Machine Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Croskey v. Ford Motor Company-Uaw

    01 Civ. 1094 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. May. 2, 2002)   Cited 3 times
    Stating that ERISA mandates that "pension benefits must be paid to [the decedent plan participant's] lawful widow, regardless of the plan's terms and definitions"

    In addition, the Michigan courts have found an admission by the bigamous party that the first marriage was never dissolved to be sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity of the second marriage.See John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Willis, 438 F.2d 1207, 1208-09 (6th Cir. 1971) (holding that the presumption was rebutted based on statements made by both a deceased, bigamous husband and his first wife indicating that they never divorced); Braymer v. Overton Mach. Co., 324 Mich. 648, 653, 37 N.W.2d 659, 661-62 (1949) (holding that a bigamous wife's admission on cross-examination that she never received divorce papers and never saw a decree of divorce was sufficient to rebut the presumption). In addition, the testimony of a bigamist's sufficient where the decedent had claimed that she was the one who had initiated the divorce.

  2. In re Adams Estate

    362 Mich. 624 (Mich. 1961)   Cited 13 times

    In addition to the 4 cases cited in the quotation taken from the Doertch Case above, this Court has applied the presumption of validity of a ceremonial marriage in Mogk v. Stroecker, 243 Mich. 668, and In re Estate of Osborn, 273 Mich. 589. The 3 cases upon which appellant here relies are Jones v. George R. Cooke Co., 250 Mich. 460, Watts v. General Motors Corp., 308 Mich. 499, and Braymer v. Overton Machine Co., 324 Mich. 648. In the latter 2 cases, however, while recognizing the efficacy of the presumption here involved, the Court found evidence sufficient to impugn the validity of the second marriage.

  3. In re Leonard Estate

    45 Mich. App. 679 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    Crockett, at p 573. In Braymer v. Overton Machine Co, 324 Mich. 648, 652-653 (1949), a workman's common-law wife sought compensation when her "husband" was killed in an industrial accident. The Court there stated:

  4. Stevenson v. Detroit

    42 Mich. App. 294 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 4 times
    In Stevenson v Detroit, 42 Mich. App. 294; 201 N.W.2d 688 (1972), lv den 388 Mich. 787 (1972), William Stevenson married Ila on November 1, 1967. An action for divorce from his first wife was commenced before his marriage, on July 22, 1967, but was not granted until July 8, 1968. He died on July 16, 1969.

    See Jones v. George R Cooke Co, supra; In re Estate of Osborn, 273 Mich. 589 (1935); Watts v. General Motors Corp, 308 Mich. 499 (1944). Similarly, see Braymer v. Overton Machine Co, 324 Mich. 648 (1949). The opinion in the Crockett case is not entirely clear; it is arguable that the Court based its conclusion deciding against the claimant on the alternative ground that the claimant had not shown that she ever complied with the requirements of the common law necessary to establish the claimed second marriage.