Linn v Linn, 341 Mich. 668, 672; 69 N.W.2d 147 (1955). See, also, Falconer v Falconer, 330 Mich. 532, 534; 48 N.W.2d 158 (1951). Thus, had plaintiff contested the grant of the divorce itself, one could argue that the policy behind the statute had been thwarted as a result of the trial court's action.

The cases plaintiff relies upon in support of the modified decree are not authority for her position in this case. Falconer v. Falconer, 330 Mich. 532, is a case in which this Court reversed the trial court and granted a rehearing upon the claim of newly discovered evidence which, if proven, would have barred defendant's right to a divorce. This Court ruled that petitioner's claim was sufficient to entitle him to a rehearing.

The extent to which our earlier decisions may be said to apply, as to whether the child is "born in lawful wedlock" must be considered under recent conditions which now arise since the interlocutory decree was inserted into some divorce cases by statute and court rule. In Falconer v. Falconer, 330 Mich. 532, this Court held that during the period while the decree was only interlocutory neither party had the right to appeal therefrom, without leave, until the decree had become final. The marital status was still in effect, at least to that extent.

Raniak v. Pokorney, 198 Mich. 567; Lantinga v. Lantinga, 318 Mich. 78; Berg v. Berg, 336 Mich. 284. In Falconer v. Falconer, 330 Mich. 532, an interlocutory decree became final by the expiration of the 6-months period after it was entered. Thereafter the defendant filed a petition for rehearing, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff prior to the divorce hearing.