E.g., East Side Trust Savings Bank v McGinnis, 197 Mich. 432; 163 N.W. 949 (1917). Traverse City State Bank v Conaway, 37 Mich. App. 647; 195 N.W.2d 288 (1972), and City Finance Co v Kloostra, 47 Mich. App. 276; 209 N.W.2d 498 (1973), do not control the issue on appeal here nor do they necessarily control the ultimate disposition of the case. In Conaway the issue was whether or not the wife was liable.
Rather than do nothing at all, Indiana, joined by its northern neighbor Michigan, interpreted the law in such a way as to preserve a joint creditor's right to proceed against entireties real estate notwithstanding the fact that one of the two spouses had been discharged. See First Nat. Bank of Goodland v. Pothuisje, 217 Ind. 1, 25 N.E.2d 436 (1940); Echelbarger v. First Nat. Bank of Swayzee, 211 Ind. 199, 5 N.E.2d 966 (1937); Smith v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Indianapolis, Inc., 139 Ind. App. 653, 218 N.E.2d 921 (1966); See also, Edwards Chamberlin Hardware Co. v. Pethick, 250 Mich. 315, 230 N.W. 186 (1930); Traverse City State Bank v. Conaway, 37 Mich. App. 647, 195 N.W.2d 288 (1972). Under their interpretation of the law, the joint obligation of a husband and wife gave rise to three liabilities.
, Morris v. Wolfe, 48 Mich. App. 40, 210 N.W.2d 16 (1973) (Judgment lien creditor can set aside a fraudulent conveyance irrespective of the husband's discharge in bankruptcy.), and Traverse City State Bank v. Conaway, 37 Mich. App. 647, 195 N.W.2d 288 (1972) (Entireties property is subject to a joint judgment creditor notwithstanding the fact that the wife signed the promissory note only as an accommodation maker and the husband had obtained a discharge in bankruptcy.). The leading Michigan case sets forth the general rule and policy behind the Michigan statutes as follows:
The Michigan Courts have held that the bankruptcy discharge of one or both spouses under that Act would not affect the rights of joint creditors. Kolakowski v. Cyman, 285 Mich. 585, 281 N.W. 332 (1938); Wesorick v. Winans, 277 Mich. 589, 269 N.W. 609 (1936); McPherson v. Gregory, 271 Mich. 580, 260 N.W. 767 (1935); Edwards Chamberlin Hardware Co. v. Pethick, 250 Mich. 315, 230 N.W. 186 (1930); Traverse City State Bank v. Conaway, 37 Mich. App. 647, 195 N.W.2d 288 (1972). Our neighbor state of Indiana has reached the same result.
In Stowers the Court held that a husband cannot compel his wife to accept a doctor-patient relationship. Defendant also cites as controlling Traverse City State Bank v Conaway, 37 Mich. App. 647 (1972). In that case defendants, husband and wife, co-signed a note in return for a loan from plaintiff bank.