advantage of seeing hearing in Michigan

1958Irvine v. Irvine, 339 Mich 375 .” Defendant further complains that the property settlement decreed by the lower court was unfair and inequitable.

1955Irvine v. Irvine, 339 Mich 375 .

1951In Northwest Home Owners Ass’n v. City of Detroit, 298 Mich 622, 643 , it was said: “ ‘We are appreciative of the fact that the trial court is in a much better position to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses than is the appellate court, by reason of the opportunity as well as the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses during their examination, direct and cross.

1948In Northwest Home Owners Ass’n v. City of Detroit, 298 Mich. 622, 643 , it was said: “We are appreciative of the fact that the trial court is in a much better position to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses than is the appellate court, by reason of the opportunity as well as the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses during their examination, direct and cross.

1978Andrew C Sisman Co v Miller, 215 Mich 425 ; 184 NW 456 (1921).

1978Andrew C Sisman Co v Miller, 215 Mich 425 ; 184 NW 456 (1921).

1970Allegan Prosecuting Attorney, v. Harding (1955), 343 Mich 41 , that when an appellate court reviews a chancery case de novo on the record, it has a duty to reach an independent conclusion, aided but not controlled by the conclusions of the trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.

1967Teller v. George (1960), 361 Mich 118, 122 , furnishes the following cogent comment: “In the case at bar the jury had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and, hence, was in a position to fairly evaluate the testimony of each.

1963Heineman & Sons, Inc., 363 Mich 276 ; Houghton v. Roberts, 357 Mich 223 ; Gocha v. Fetterolf, 363 Mich 344 ." We have repeatedly stated that this Court recognizes the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and that we rely upon the trial court's judgment on questions of fact.

1963Heineman & Sons, Inc., 363 Mich 276 ; Houghton v. Roberts, 357 Mich 223 ; Gocha v. Fetterolf, 363 Mich 344 .” We have repeatedly stated that this Court recognizes the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and that we rely upon the trial court’s judgment on questions of fact.

1963The Supreme Court is not relieved of the duty of exercising its own judgment in passing on the evidence merely because the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses when their testimony was given.” 8 Callaghan, Michigan Pleading and Practice, Scope of Appellate Review, § 57.96; Same, 1963 Cum Supp; and see Christine Building Co. v. City of Troy, 367 Mich 508 at 517 , and cases there cited.

1963Heineman & Sons, Inc., 363 Mich 276 ; Houghton v. Roberts, 357 Mich 223 ; Gocha v. Fetterolf, 363 Mich 344 ." We have repeatedly stated that this Court recognizes the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and that we rely upon the trial court's judgment on questions of fact.

1963Heineman & Sons, Inc., 363 Mich 276 ; Houghton v. Roberts, 357 Mich 223 ; Gocha v. Fetterolf, 363 Mich 344 .” We have repeatedly stated that this Court recognizes the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and that we rely upon the trial court’s judgment on questions of fact.

1963Heineman & Sons, Inc., 363 Mich 276 ; Houghton v. Roberts, 357 Mich 223 ; Gocha v. Fetterolf, 363 Mich 344 ." We have repeatedly stated that this Court recognizes the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and that we rely upon the trial court's judgment on questions of fact.

1963Heineman & Sons, Inc., 363 Mich 276 ; Houghton v. Roberts, 357 Mich 223 ; Gocha v. Fetterolf, 363 Mich 344 .” We have repeatedly stated that this Court recognizes the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and that we rely upon the trial court’s judgment on questions of fact.

1957In reviewing this record, as in other chancery appeals, we are bound, in the words of Mr. Justice Campbell long ago (Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich 138, 143 ) to “render such respect to the views of the in *610 ferior tribunal as not to disturb its orders without being satisfied of their requiring correction.” We are mindful, also, that the trial chancellor had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.

1957In Boter v. Boter, 338 Mich 187, 190 , this Court said: “It is true, as» defendant claims, that neither party was entirely blameless.

1956Quackenbush v. Quackenbush, 305 Mich 704 .

1955In Atzinger v. Atzinger, 325 Mich 78, 84 , in discussing an analogous question, it was said: “In the case at bar the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses present and observing the mental and physical condition of plaintiff at the time of the trial.

1946As was stated in Hallett v. Hallett, 279 Mich. 246 : “There is no rigid rule of division of property in divorce actions.” Each case of this character must be determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record. *447 Based on our conclusions from the pleadings and the proofs we think the decree, as entered, should he modified in certain particulars.

1941This is particularly true when his conclusions are supported by credible testimony.” Fenwick v. Leonard, 255 Mich. 85, 90 .

1915It is true that his conduct in frequenting the place where he indulged in this practice and the pleasure that he seemed to get from gambling in a small way, could be the subject of some criticism, but, as was said by this court in Cadieux v. Cadieux, 180 Mich. 99 , at page 105 ( 146 N. W. 161 , at page 163): “While culpable and an evidence of moral instability, we are not prepared to hold that, as proven, it amounted to a cause of divorce.” We have carefully read this record, and although having in mind the fact that the learned chancellor, who heard the case below, had the advantage of seeing

1915It is true that his conduct in frequenting the place where he indulged in this practice and the pleasure that he seemed to get from gambling in a small way, could be the subject of some criticism, but, as was said by this court in Cadieux v. Cadieux, 180 Mich. 99 , at page 105 ( 146 N. W. 161 , at page 163): “While culpable and an evidence of moral instability, we are not prepared to hold that, as proven, it amounted to a cause of divorce.” We have carefully read this record, and although having in mind the fact that the learned chancellor, who heard the case below, had the advantage of seeing