Smith v. Reilly

Michigan Supreme Court

Smith v. Reilly

45 N.W. 1122, 82 Mich. 93

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 45 N.W. 1122 (Smith v. Reilly) 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

Smith v. Reilly, 45 N.W. 1122, 82 Mich. 93 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator presented a claim against the estate of Moses W. Field, to the commissioners appointed on such estate, for $3,500. The decision of the commissioners disallowing the claim was filed November 23, 1889. No appeal was made or claimed by Smith from the report of the commissioners within 60 days, as required by statute; but on March 31, 1890, an application was made by C. C. Burt, as attorney for Smith, for leave to appeal from the report of the commissioners disallowing the claim, under How. Stat. §§ 5948, 6784. A hearing was had before the circuit judge, and the application denied. We are asked to review this action by mandamus.

[94]*94It is not necessary for us to recite the grounds upon which the application was based. The application was one which appealed to the discretion of the circuit judge, and we decline to review the exercise of such discretion, except in cases where it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused. There is nothing to indicate that in this case.

The application for mandamus will be denied.

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

Per Curiam.

The relator presented a claim against the estate of Moses W. Field, to the commissioners appointed on such estate, for $3,500. The decision of the commissioners disallowing the claim was filed November 23, 1889. No appeal was made or claimed by Smith from the report of the commissioners within 60 days, as required by statute; but on March 31, 1890, an application was made by C. C. Burt, as attorney for Smith, for leave to appeal from the report of the commissioners disallowing the claim, under How. Stat. §§ 5948, 6784. A hearing was had before the circuit judge, and the application denied. We are asked to review this action by mandamus.

[94]*94It is not necessary for us to recite the grounds upon which the application was based. The application was one which appealed to the discretion of the circuit judge, and we decline to review the exercise of such discretion, except in cases where it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused. There is nothing to indicate that in this case.

The application for mandamus will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.W. 1122, 82 Mich. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-reilly-mich-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack