Ackerman v. Pfent

Michigan Supreme Court

Ackerman v. Pfent

108 N.W. 1084, 145 Mich. 710, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 837

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 20, 1906

DocketDocket No. 84

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 108 N.W. 1084 (Ackerman v. Pfent) 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

Ackerman v. Pfent, 108 N.W. 1084, 145 Mich. 710, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 837 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

(after stating the facts). The contention of the complainant is that the levy was prima facie a satisfaction of the defendant’s claim, or at least a suspension of his right to proceed to collect his judgment by other proceedings, and that it follows that defendant was not a creditor entitled to administration of Jacob-Acker[712]*712man’s estate. It has long been settled in this State that a levy of an execution upon real estate of the debtor is not prima facie satisfaction of a judgment. Spafford v. Beach, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 150; Miller v. Hanley, 94 Mich. 253.

The petition for administration was regular in form. There was within the jurisdiction of the probate court an estate to be administered. The determination of that court that defendant was a party entitled to letters of administration is not therefore open to collateral attack. Wilkinson v. Conaty, 65 Mich. 614; Johnson v. Johnson's Estate, 66 Mich. 525; In re Sprague's Estate, 125 Mich. 357.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Blair, Ostrander, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

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

Montgomery, J.

(after stating the facts). The contention of the complainant is that the levy was prima facie a satisfaction of the defendant’s claim, or at least a suspension of his right to proceed to collect his judgment by other proceedings, and that it follows that defendant was not a creditor entitled to administration of Jacob-Acker[712]*712man’s estate. It has long been settled in this State that a levy of an execution upon real estate of the debtor is not prima facie satisfaction of a judgment. Spafford v. Beach, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 150; Miller v. Hanley, 94 Mich. 253.

The petition for administration was regular in form. There was within the jurisdiction of the probate court an estate to be administered. The determination of that court that defendant was a party entitled to letters of administration is not therefore open to collateral attack. Wilkinson v. Conaty, 65 Mich. 614; Johnson v. Johnson's Estate, 66 Mich. 525; In re Sprague's Estate, 125 Mich. 357.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Blair, Ostrander, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.W. 1084, 145 Mich. 710, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ackerman-v-pfent-mich-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack