
    KRYSTKIEWlCZ v. KRYSTKIEWlCZ.
    1. Divorce — Matters Arising Since Decree.
    In divorce cases, matters arising since decree are more properly presented to circuit eourt on petition to amend or modify the decree rather than to Supreme Court on appeal by way of supplemental testimony.
    
      2. Same — Division of Property — Modification of Decree.
    While record in divorce case indicates provisions of decree as to division of property are not inequitable, modification is made in favor of wife to allow her a lien on husband’s interest as tenant in common in heavily mortgaged homestead for amount she borrowed and paid on mortgage thereon.
    Appeal from Muskegon; Vanderwerp (John), J.
    Submitted May 27,1935.
    (Docket No. 124, Calendar No. 37,868.)
    Decided September 9, 1935.
    Bill by Nellie Krystkiewicz against John Krystkiewicz for separate maintenance. Cross-bill by defendant for an absolute divorce. Decree for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    Modified and affirmed.
    
      Alexis J. Rogoski, for plaintiff.
   Fead, J.

This is an appeal from property provisions and money allowances in a decree for divorce. The testimony set up in the record is confined to such matters. 'Plaintiff asks privilege of supplementing the decree by other testimony.

Matters arising since decree are more properly presented to circuit court on petition to amend or modify the decree.

The record before us does not indicate that the court reached an inequitable result. However, the homestead, in which the parties now become tenants in common, is heavily mortgaged and the possibility of their saving it seems slight. We think the decree should provide for its sale and division of the proceeds, on petition of either party and if the court should deem it proper. An item of $215.78, borrowed by plaintiff and applied upon the mortgage, apparently overlooked by the court, should be made a lien in her favor against defendant’s interest in the homestead. Otherwise the decree will be affirmed, Avithout costs, and the cause remanded to the circuit court.

Potter, C. J., and Nelson Sharpe, North, Wiest, Butzel, Bushnell, and Edward M. Sharpe, JJ., concurred.  