Rickabus v. Gott

• Decision Date: 02 July 1883
• Citation: 51 Mich. 227,16 N.W. 384
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: RICKABUS v. GOTT.

16 N.W. 384

51 Mich. 227

RICKABUS v. GOTT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 2, 1883

The introduction of matters foreign to the issue before the jury in the opening statement of counsel, is improper, and should not be allowed by the court.

The attack on the character of the plaintiff in this case was irrelevant, tended to prejudice the jury, and sufficient ground for reversing the judgment and granting a new trial.

Error to Wayne.

Geo. H Prentis, for defendant.

GRAVES C.J.

This proceeding was brought by Mrs. Rickabus, in the court of probate, to prove and establish a missing will which she alleges was made and left by William Buck, who died at Grosse Point, November 30, 1874. Her demand for probate was contested by John F. Gott, who is described as being Buck's nephew and heir at law, and the court decided adversely to her. She then appealed to the circuit court, where a trial was had before a jury with a like result, and she now complains of rulings there made. At the time of his death the decedent, Buck, was 64 or 65 years of age. He owned a large farm at Grosse Point and some other property. For many years this farm had constituted the place of residence of himself and his wife, Elizabeth, and it remained their home to the time of his decease. If any children were born to them they must have died a long time since. When about eight years of age the proponent was taken into the family as a member, and she continued in that situation until her marriage with one Cordy, in February, 1858, and possibly until a later period. She claims that she was received, treated, and considered by decedent as his adopted child, and that he left a will by which he gave her 40 acres of the farm referred to. Several years since her husband, Cordy, died, and she afterwards intermarried with one Rickabus, whose name she now bears. During her marriage with Cordy a son was born to her. On the death of Buck no will was produced, and his widow, Elizabeth, was appointed administratrix. She subsequently intermarried with Charles Turner, and died without being discharged as administratrix. She left all her property by will to Turner, and no one has been appointed in her place to represent the estate of Buck.

This sketch is, perhaps, redundant, but the fault is not very material.

1. When contestant's counsel proceeded to make his statement preparatory to the introduction of testimony, he was allowed against...