Grady v. Hughes

• Decision Date: 11 April 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 1050,80 Mich. 184
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GRADY et al. v. HUGHES et al.

44 N.W. 1050

80 Mich. 184

GRADY et al. v. HUGHES et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 11, 1890

Appeals from circuit court, Kent county, in chancery.

John A. Fairfield, (Birney Hoyt, of counsel,) for complainants. Fitzgerald &amp Barry, for appellant Hughes. Fletcher & Wanty for defendant Houseman. Norris & Norris, for defendant Hodenpyl.

CHAMPLIN C.J.

This case comes before us upon demurrers filed by defendants to the bill of complaint. The general demurrer for want of equity only can be considered. Complainants are heirs at law of Jeremiah Grady, deceased. The defendants are Michael H Hughes, who was the administrator of Jeremiah Grady, who died in November, 1872; Isabella Grady, who was the widow of Jeremiah Grady; Julius Houseman, who is the surety in the probate bond of Michael H. Hughes as administrator; and Anton G. Hodenpyl, who is the executor of Richard E. Butterworth who was the other surety in the administrator's bond. Mary Adams and James Adams are grandchildren of Jeremiah Grady, deceased; their parents being dead. Hughes, Houseman, and Hodenpyl filed separate demurrers, and upon hearing the court overruled the demurrer of Hughes, and sustained the demurrers of Houseman and Hodenpyl, and dismissed the bill as to each of them. Complainants and defendant Hughes bring separate appeals.

As to defendant Hughes, we think the bill shows sufficient equity to require an answer; and we therefore affirm the decretal order overruling his demurrer, and requiring him to answer with costs. See Grady v. Hughes, 64 Mich. 540, 31 N.W. 438. The prayer of the bill is that a certain order entered by the probate court allowing a final account of the administrator, and another order, subsequently made discharging such administrator from his trust, may be vacated, set aside, and held for naught, and that defendant Hughes be required to render his final account as administrator of the estate of Jeremiah Grady, deceased, and that an account be taken in this court of the assets which came to Michael H. Hughes' hands as administrator, and his disposition and expenditure of the same, and a balance struck, and the amount found and stated due from him to the estate, and that the sureties on the bond be decreed to pay such amount forthwith. The relief sought against Hughes is based upon his fraudulent acts and practices in the management of the estate. But, as the sureties are not alleged to have been...