Abraham v. Doster

Michigan Supreme Court

Abraham v. Doster

17 N.W.2d 242, 310 Mich. 433, 1945 Mich. LEXIS 485

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 2, 1945

DocketDocket No. 60, Calendar No. 42,831.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 N.W.2d 242 (Abraham v. Doster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abraham v. Doster, 17 N.W.2d 242, 310 Mich. 433, 1945 Mich. LEXIS 485 (Mich. 1945).

Pincite

Opinions

I do not agree with Mr. Justice SHARPE that statements made by the defendant were inadmissible as substantive proof of the facts admitted. *Page 445 These statements were admissions against interest by the defendant herself and are therefore substantive proof of the facts admitted. In Merrill v. Leisenring, 166 Mich. 219, 227, it was said that "such statements are evidence for the adverse party." In Scheloski v. Schricker, 245 Mich. 391, this court said that the voluntary admissions of the defendant against his interest "are admissible against him as primary evidence." InElliotte v. Lavier, 299 Mich. 353, we said:

"Admissions are statements made by or on behalf of a party to the suit in which they are offered which contradict some position assumed by that party in that suit. They are substantive evidence for the adverse party."

However, we have no right to affirm a decree merely on the ground that it "is a just and equitable disposition of the rights and interests of the parties," quoting the language used by Mr. Justice REID. Despite old age, mental deterioration and physical infirmities, one who is mentally competent as a matter of law, and in the absence of fraud or undue influences, has the legal right to control the disposition of his property. Plaintiff has failed to prove that Chauncey F. Abraham was mentally incompetent, or that defendant obtained the property by fraud or undue influence, in the legal and adjudicated meaning of these terms, and for that reason I concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice SHARPE.

STARR, C.J., and NORTH and BUSHNELL, JJ., concurred with BOYLES, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

I do not agree with Mr. Justice SHARPE that statements made by the defendant were inadmissible as substantive proof of the facts admitted. *Page 445 These statements were admissions against interest by the defendant herself and are therefore substantive proof of the facts admitted. In Merrill v. Leisenring, 166 Mich. 219, 227, it was said that "such statements are evidence for the adverse party." In Scheloski v. Schricker, 245 Mich. 391, this court said that the voluntary admissions of the defendant against his interest "are admissible against him as primary evidence." InElliotte v. Lavier, 299 Mich. 353, we said:

"Admissions are statements made by or on behalf of a party to the suit in which they are offered which contradict some position assumed by that party in that suit. They are substantive evidence for the adverse party."

However, we have no right to affirm a decree merely on the ground that it "is a just and equitable disposition of the rights and interests of the parties," quoting the language used by Mr. Justice REID. Despite old age, mental deterioration and physical infirmities, one who is mentally competent as a matter of law, and in the absence of fraud or undue influences, has the legal right to control the disposition of his property. Plaintiff has failed to prove that Chauncey F. Abraham was mentally incompetent, or that defendant obtained the property by fraud or undue influence, in the legal and adjudicated meaning of these terms, and for that reason I concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice SHARPE.

STARR, C.J., and NORTH and BUSHNELL, JJ., concurred with BOYLES, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.W.2d 242, 310 Mich. 433, 1945 Mich. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abraham-v-doster-mich-1945.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack