case remanded hearing in Michigan

1946We called attention to Braffett v. Braffett, 308 Mich. 506 , and said (p. 160): “We there held that in the failure, of the deceased during his lifetime or the representative of his estate to take any action to have a divorce decree modified, the probate court may allow the claim for accrued alimony and make provision for the payment of future alimony by holding the estate open and retaining funds to safeguard the contingent claim. ’ ’ On the remand, plaintiff’s bill of complaint for a lump sum in cash from the* estate, and defendant’s cross hill for modification of the decree, have been heard

1946We called attention to Braffett v. Braffett , 308 Mich. 506 , and said (p. 160): "We there held that in the failure of the deceased during his lifetime or the representative of his estate to take any action to have a divorce decree modified, the probate court may allow the claim for accrued alimony and make provision for the payment of future alimony by holding the estate open and retaining funds to safeguard the contingent claim." On the remand, plaintiff's bill of complaint for a lump sum in cash from the estate, and defendant's cross bill for modification of the decree, have been heard in t

1946On hearing, the court dismissed the bill of complaint, holding “that the court has no power to continue the payments of permanent alimony out of the estate of the deceased.” That order of dismissal was reversed by this court in LaBarge v. LaBarge, 312 Mich. 157 , and the case remanded for a hearing on the merits of the bill of complaint and cross "bill.

1946On hearing, the court dismissed the bill of complaint, holding "that the court has no power to continue the payments of permanent alimony out of the estate of the deceased." That order of dismissal was reversed by this court in LaBarge v. LaBarge , 312 Mich. 157 , and the case remanded for a hearing on the merits of the bill of *Page 325 complaint and cross bill.

1990As the lead opinion points out, however, another panel of the Court of Appeals in People v Roy, 80 Mich App 714 ; 265 NW2d 20 (1978), held that an undercover operation in which government agents operate on both ends of a supposed drug transaction is not entrapment per se.

1990As the lead opinion points out, however, another panel of the Court of Appeals in People v Roy, 80 Mich App 714 ; 265 NW2d 20 (1978), held that an undercover operation in which government agents operate on both ends of a supposed drug transaction is not entrapment per se.

1960Peoples Savings Bank v. Stoddard, 351 Mich 342 .

1938No costs will be allowed.” The situation disclosed by the instant record shows even greater need for refusal of piecemeal consideration of the case than was shown in Gray v. Eldred, supra. Section 15508, 3 Comp.