Buchoz v. Pray

Michigan Supreme Court

Buchoz v. Pray

1 McGrath 153, 36 McGrath 429

DecidedJuly 1, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 153 (Buchoz v. Pray) 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

Buchoz v. Pray, 1 McGrath 153, 36 McGrath 429 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

The duty of commissioners on claims in the Probate Court to report the proof of a contingent claim presented to them, is not judicial, but ministerial, and its omission cannot be remedied, rectified or redressed by appeal; its observance must be enforced by warrant (Comp. Laws 1871, Sec. 5200, How. Ann. Stat., Sec. 8544), or by mandamus, or by attachment, or the proof must be supplied, if necessary, in some special way.

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

The duty of commissioners on claims in the Probate Court to report the proof of a contingent claim presented to them, is not judicial, but ministerial, and its omission cannot be remedied, rectified or redressed by appeal; its observance must be enforced by warrant (Comp. Laws 1871, Sec. 5200, How. Ann. Stat., Sec. 8544), or by mandamus, or by attachment, or the proof must be supplied, if necessary, in some special way.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 153, 36 McGrath 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchoz-v-pray-mich-1890.