McGee v. Walker

Michigan Supreme Court

McGee v. Walker

64 N.W. 482, 106 Mich. 521, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 1037

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 1, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 64 N.W. 482 (McGee v. Walker) 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

McGee v. Walker, 64 N.W. 482, 106 Mich. 521, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 1037 (Mich. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

This is another suit growing out of the same transaction stated in McGee v. McGee, 105 Mich. 602. After that suit was instituted, and a preliminary injunction issued to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of complainant to the real estate described in the deeds to him, he filed this bill, setting forth that the defendant, as administrator of the estate of Bernard McGee, had included the growing wheat upon his land in the inventory, and had appraised it as part of said estate, and claimed the right to the possession and control of the land, and prayed for an injunction. The defendant answered, claiming the crop of wheat, and praying that it be decreed to be a part of the assets of said estate. A preliminary injunction was issued, which, upon the hearing, was made perpetual.

The principal controversy over this land was decided in McGee v. McGee, the result of which is to leave the title in the heirs. Between the heirs and the administrator, the latter is entitled to the growing crop. Crosw. Ex’rs & Adm’rs, § 349. In such case the rule in Rough v. Womer, 76 Mich. 375, has no application.

The decree is reversed, with costs of both courts to the defendant.

Long, Montgomery, and Hooker, JJ., concurred. McGrath, C. J., did not sit.

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

Grant, J.

This is another suit growing out of the same transaction stated in McGee v. McGee, 105 Mich. 602. After that suit was instituted, and a preliminary injunction issued to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of complainant to the real estate described in the deeds to him, he filed this bill, setting forth that the defendant, as administrator of the estate of Bernard McGee, had included the growing wheat upon his land in the inventory, and had appraised it as part of said estate, and claimed the right to the possession and control of the land, and prayed for an injunction. The defendant answered, claiming the crop of wheat, and praying that it be decreed to be a part of the assets of said estate. A preliminary injunction was issued, which, upon the hearing, was made perpetual.

The principal controversy over this land was decided in McGee v. McGee, the result of which is to leave the title in the heirs. Between the heirs and the administrator, the latter is entitled to the growing crop. Crosw. Ex’rs & Adm’rs, § 349. In such case the rule in Rough v. Womer, 76 Mich. 375, has no application.

The decree is reversed, with costs of both courts to the defendant.

Long, Montgomery, and Hooker, JJ., concurred. McGrath, C. J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 N.W. 482, 106 Mich. 521, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 1037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgee-v-walker-mich-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack