Fish v. Morse

8 Mich. 34, 1860 Mich. LEXIS 4
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 9, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 8 Mich. 34 (Fish v. Morse) 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
Fish v. Morse, 8 Mich. 34, 1860 Mich. LEXIS 4 (Mich. 1860).

Opinion

Manning J.:

It appears from the report of the commissioners to the Probate Court, that the claim disallowed by the commissioners was a promisory note for $5,000. In making up the issue in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff filed a declaration containing two counts, instead of one. The first count is on a promise made by the intestate in his life-time, and the other on a promise made by the administrators on an account stated after the death of the intestate, between plaintiff and the administrators.

A copy of the note, with notice that it would be given in evidence on the trial, was attached to the declaration.

The first count, with a copy of the note attached to the declaration, was all that was necessary to put in issue the claim that had been passed on by the commissioners, and the second count may be regarded as surplusage merely. It is moreover defective on its face, as it does not show a valid claim against the estate of the deceased.

Under our probate system, all claims against the estate of a deceased person, when commissioners have been ap[37]*37pointed to hear and adjust such claims, are to be presented to, and to be allowed by them. The estate is not bound by any account stated with the administrator.

Had the jury, therefore, found for plaintiff on the second count, and assessed damages in her favor, it would have been the duty of the court to render the judgment it did, notwithstanding such finding, as they had found for defendants on the ' first and only count in the declaration that set forth a valid claim against the estate.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Martin Ch. J., and Campbell J. concurred. Christiancy J., was absent.

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

Related

Sturges v. Sturges
50 P.2d 886 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1935)
Goodrich v. Hubbard's Estate
206 N.W. 480 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1925)
Municipal Court v. Bostwick
78 A. 53 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1910)
Draper v. Brown
117 N.W. 213 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1908)
Thompson v. Village of Mecosta
104 N.W. 694 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1905)
Miner v. Raymond
71 N.W. 501 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
Grece v. Helm
51 N.W. 1106 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1892)
Shelden v. Estate of Warner
26 N.W. 667 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)
Durfee v. Abbott
15 N.W. 454 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1883)
White v. Ledyard
12 N.W. 216 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1882)
Patrick v. Howard
10 N.W. 71 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1881)
Lannon v. Hackett
5 N.W. 474 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1880)
Shurbun v. Hooper
40 Mich. 503 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1879)
Clark v. Davis
32 Mich. 154 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Mich. 34, 1860 Mich. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fish-v-morse-mich-1860.