Beaubien v. Cicotte
Decision Date | 15 July 1864 |
Citation | 12 Mich. 459 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | Julia Beaubien and others v. Mary A. Cicotte and others |
Heard May 17, 1864; May 18, 1864; May 19, 1864 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Error to Wayne Circuit.
Joseph A. Moross, Julia Beaubien and Rose J. Moross, presented to the Probate Court for the county of Wayne, for probate and allowance, an instrument dated January 12, 1858, purporting to be the last will and testament of Antoine Beaubien, and attested by Isaac S. Smith, Israel A. Moross and F. Provost, as subscribing witnesses. The will gave the whole of the property of the testator to his wife, Julia Beaubien, during her life time, with remainder to her children by a former marriage, Mary Millette, Rose J. Moross, Napoleon Millette, Joseph Millette and Israel Millette. Joseph A. Moross was named sole executor. On the hearing in the Probate Court, the will was disallowed, and the proponents appealed.
The case, as presented in the Circuit Court, is so fully set forth in the opinion, that it is deemed unnecessary to give in this place anything except the testimony of Bishop LeFevre, upon which the principal questions in the case arose. This testimony was given after the subscribing witnesses had testified to the circumstances attending the execution of the will, and Robert P. and James B. Eldredge had been examined relative to the drafting of the same, and the instructions therefor.
Peter P. LeFevre, called for the contestants, testified as follows:
Witness then proceeded to state in detail the nature of his relations to Mr. Beaubien, for several years previous to his death, his degree of intimacy with him, and what business and other transactions they had together, all tending to show the nature and degree of Beaubien's mental capacity when in health; and also testified to his opinion as to said capacity.
And he further testified, in substance, that sometime in the year 1853, said Beaubien came to him, and complained of the conduct of Mr. Meldrum, who was then acting as his agent, attending to his affairs. He said that Meldrum had got him to sign some paper which divested him of all legal right to his property, and on account of which he (Beaubien) threatened to, and did afterwards, commence a suit against said Meldrum. That the Chicago Beaubiens were at the same time carrying on a suit against said Antoine and others, in relation to the title of his farm, and the old man appeared in much trouble.
That about this time said Antoine informed witness that Capt. Cicotte had advised him to sell his property, and had informed him that Van Dyke would purchase it. That Beaubien afterwards came to him, and said that Van Dyke offered him $ 54,000, but insisted upon his consulting with witness. That witness advised him to accept the offer. That papers were drawn. They were brought to witness's room, and witness explained them to Beaubien; and also that Van Dyke took the purchase subject to the litigation with Meldrum and that with the Chicago Beaubiens, and the papers were then executed. Witness afterwards saw Meldrum for Van Dyke, and assisted in settling the litigation with him.
And witness then further testified as follows:
Contestants' counsel here called upon Mr. Howard, proponents' counsel, to produce that agreement.
Mr. Howard replied that it was not in court, but explained that it was an agreement by Mr. Beaubien to settle $ 20,000 on his wife for life, and on her children after her death.
Question by contestants' counsel. Do you know what Mr. Beaubien claimed in regard to the Meldrum deed?
Answer. He complained various ways about it, and came frequently to see me about it. Don't know what he claimed, or how the deed was obtained. This deed was made without my knowledge. Meldrum also came to see me about it. Mr. Beaubien had frequently expressed to Meldrum his dissatisfaction. Meldrum came to me, and said Beaubien was coming also. They brought the papers. I read and explained them as well as time would permit. Beaubien was not satisfied. It was a trust-deed or contract. Can't say what Beaubien claimed as to how they were obtained. Beaubien came again and expressed dissatisfaction. And some three weeks afterwards he came again. Van D. said, as people talked so much, he was afraid that Beaubien might be dissatisfied, and he did not want to keep the trade if he was, and wanted to give back the papers, and every thing should be null and void.
And witness further testified as follows: (A copy of the will of March 10, 1854, was here shown to witness, which Mr. Howard, counsel for the proponents, admitted to be a copy of the will drawn up by him.)
The witness, referring to this will, further testified:
Said witness then further testified, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gholson v. Peters
...112 S.W. 405; Pergason v. Etcherson, 91 Ga. 785; Ross v. McQuiston, 45 Iowa 145; Bradshaw v. Butler, 30 Ky. L. 1249; Beaubien v. Cicotte, 12 Mich. 459; Matter of Woodward, 167 N.Y. A will is admissible in evidence as proof of title. Tittipo v. Morgan, 99 Ind. 269; Conley v. McElmeel, 149 N.......
-
People v. Mills
..."any" tendency is sufficient probative force. MRE 401. This definition is well established in Michigan jurisprudence. See Beaubien v. Cicotte, 12 Mich. 459, 484 (1864), and Collins v. Beecher, 45 Mich. 436, 438, 8 N.W. 97 Thus, in this case, we must determine if the debated evidence, the se......
-
People v. Crawford
...it would be without the evidence." The threshold is minimal: "any" tendency is sufficient probative force. MRE 401. See Beaubien v. Cicotte, 12 Mich. 459, 484 (1864), and Collins v. Beecher & Marquette & Pacific Rolling Mill. Co., 45 Mich. 436, 438, 8 N.W. 97 (1881). In the context of prior......
-
Hardrick v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
...of evidence that throws some light, however faint, on the reasonableness of a charge for attendant-care services. See Beaubien v. Cicotte, 12 Mich. 459, 484 (1864). In other words, an agency rate supplies one measure of the value of attendant care and is worthy of a jury's consideration. A ......