Cornett v. Cornett

• Decision Date: 20 February 1900
• Citation: 122 Mich. 685,81 N.W. 920
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CORNETT v. CORNETT.

81 N.W. 920

122 Mich. 685

CORNETT v. CORNETT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 20, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county, in chancery; Erastus Peck, Judge.

Bill in equity by George Cornett against William H. Cornett. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Pringle & Hewett, for appellant.

Blair Smith & Townsend, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY C.J.

The complainant's bill alleges: Certain fraudulent proceedings in the year 1896 by the defendant to get possession of his property from a custodian in another county, and the bringing of it to the county of Jackson, for the purpose of giving a seeming jurisdiction to the probate court for proceedings to appoint a guardian, and the following up of that fraud by statements, without any reason of foundation of facts, to show that the complainant was insane. That by such means, while the complainant was entirely sane and competent, and transacting business as a traveling salesman in the state of Indiana, the defendant without actual notice to him, or his knowledge, fraudulently procured a decree of the probate court adjudging the complainant incompetent to take care of himself or manage his property, and the appointment of the defendant as guardian of his person and property. The guardian qualified and acted, and in January, 1898, filed with the probate court an account, alleging that he had expended, or become entitled to compensation as guardian to the sum of $135.48. And that at the time of filing the bill the guardian claimed to have an additional account, which had not then been presented. The complainant's bill is in the nature of a review of such proceedings, and was demurred to for the reason, among others, that it appeared by the bill that before it was filed the complainant had applied to the same court by petition, and on such application had been discharged from guardianship. The circuit judge found as follows: 'It appears from the bill that the defendant was appointed special guardian of the complainant by the probate court of Jackson county on or about the 15th day of May 1896; that he filed his bond as such guardian, which was approved June 15, 1896, and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such guardian; that on the 24th day of August 1896, the defendant was appointed guardian of the complainant by the said court, filed a new bond, which was approved August 29, 1896, and from that day forward assumed to be acting as guardian of the complainant. It further appears from the eighth paragraph of said bill and the probate files that on the 6th day of January, 1899, complainant filed a petition in the probate court alleging his then present competency to manage his own affairs, and...