Hagerman v. Wigent,

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtMONTGOMERY
Citation65 N.W. 756,108 Mich. 192
Decision Date16 January 1896
PartiesHAGERMAN ET AL. v. WIGENT ET AL.

108 Mich. 192
65 N.W. 756

HAGERMAN ET AL.
v.
WIGENT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan 16, 1896.


Appeal from circuit court, Hillsdale county, in chancery; Victor H. Lane, Judge.

Bill by James Hagerman and another against Andrew J. Wigent and another. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

[65 N.W. 756]

W. J. Sampson, for appellants.

Guy M. Chester and Fred M. Twiss, for appellees.


MONTGOMERY, J.

This is a bill filed against the defendant Andrew J. Wigent, executor, and Fred L. Wigent, legatee, under the will of Mary Rainey Pridgeon, to restrain the foreclosure of a mortgage executed by the complainants and their mother, Avaline Hagerman, to Mary Rainey, afterwards Mrs. Pridgeon, in September, 1875. In December, 1878, and before her marriage to Pridgeon, Miss Rainey executed a will, bequeathing her property to defendant Fred Wigent. The claim of complainants is that during her lifetime Mary Rainey Pridgeon frequently expressed the intention of giving the two complainants, who were her nephews, the mortgage, and that she only expected and only desired to recover interest upon it while she lived; that to effectuate this intention she delivered the mortgage to her husband, Joshua Pridgeon, with instructions to deliver the same to complainants after her death; and that the mortgage was so delivered, but that the defendants, claiming title, commenced proceedings to foreclose by advertisement. Apart from the controversy upon the question of fact it is contended by defendants that there was no delivery of the mortgage, and that there was, therefore, no valid gift inter vivos. The

[65 N.W. 757]

circuit judge found that the mortgage was delivered to Joshua Pridgeon by deceased with instructions to deliver to complainants as stated. This was a sufficient delivery. Thacher v. St. Andrews Church, 37 Mich. 264;Foster v. Mansfield, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 412;Belden v. Carter, 4 Day, 66;Lathum v. Udell, 38 Mich. 238;Brown v. Stutson, 100 Mich. 574, 59 N. W. 238. It is insisted, however, that the testimony of the husband, Joshua Pridgeon, was not competent to show the delivery of the mortgage to him, or the instructions accompanying the delivery of the mortgage to him, as it involved communications made by the wife to the husband during coverture. 3 How. Ann. St. § 7546, excludes as a witness the husband or wife who is brought as a witness to testify against the other during coverture. Blanchard v. Moors, 85 Mich. 380, 48 N. W. 542; Berles v. Circuit Judge, 102 Mich. 495, 60 N. W. 967. The statute also declares that “neither during the marriage or afterwards, without the consent of the other, shall be examined as to any communication made by or to the other during marriage.” This provision is but declaratory to the common law. The word “communication” must be understood as having been used in the sense which had attached to it by its common use in the same construction. At the common law, testimony of the husband or wife was admissible, after coverture terminated either by divorce or death of the other spouse, in all cases where the facts sought to be proven did not fall within the inhibition against the disclosure of confidential communications between...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • People v. Hamacher, Docket No. 81202
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • March 30, 1989
    ..."[u]sually such [432 Mich. 167] statements relate to facts which are intended later to become publicly known." 14 In Hagerman v. Wigent, 108 Mich. 192, 194, 65 N.W. 756 (1896), this Court anticipated McCormick's rationale when it based its holding, that a husband could testify his wife had ......
  • Keller v. McConville
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 28, 1913
    ...days of December, and our attention has been called to the cases of Trabbic v. Trabbic, 142 Mich. 387, 105 N. W. 876,Hagerman v. Wigent, 108 Mich. 192, 65 N. W. 756, and Holmes v. McConald, 119 Mich. 563, 78 N. W. 647,75 Am. St. Rep. 430, in support of that position. In Trabbic v. Trabbic t......
  • First Methodist Church of Ann Arbot v. Seeger (In re Doty's Estate), No. 23.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 21, 1920
    ...however, held in that case that the statute did not apply where the separate property of the wife was involved. In Hagerman v. Wigent, 108 Mich. 192, 65 N. W. 756, Justice Montgomery speaking for the court said: ‘In this state it has been frequently held that the surviving husband or wife c......
  • Barras v. Barras, No. 287.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 26, 1916
    ...(Howell [2d Ed.] § 12857), applies only to confidential communications between husband and wife during the marriage. Hagerman v. Wigent, 108 Mich. 192, 65 N. W. 756;Jenkinson v. Brook, 119 Mich. 108, 77 N. W. 640;Ward v. Oliver, 129 Mich. 300, 88 N. W. 631;Thayer v. Thayer, 154 N. W. 32. Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • People v. Hamacher, Docket No. 81202
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • March 30, 1989
    ..."[u]sually such [432 Mich. 167] statements relate to facts which are intended later to become publicly known." 14 In Hagerman v. Wigent, 108 Mich. 192, 194, 65 N.W. 756 (1896), this Court anticipated McCormick's rationale when it based its holding, that a husband could testify his wife had ......
  • Keller v. McConville
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 28, 1913
    ...days of December, and our attention has been called to the cases of Trabbic v. Trabbic, 142 Mich. 387, 105 N. W. 876,Hagerman v. Wigent, 108 Mich. 192, 65 N. W. 756, and Holmes v. McConald, 119 Mich. 563, 78 N. W. 647,75 Am. St. Rep. 430, in support of that position. In Trabbic v. Trabbic t......
  • First Methodist Church of Ann Arbot v. Seeger (In re Doty's Estate), No. 23.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 21, 1920
    ...however, held in that case that the statute did not apply where the separate property of the wife was involved. In Hagerman v. Wigent, 108 Mich. 192, 65 N. W. 756, Justice Montgomery speaking for the court said: ‘In this state it has been frequently held that the surviving husband or wife c......
  • Barras v. Barras, No. 287.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 26, 1916
    ...(Howell [2d Ed.] § 12857), applies only to confidential communications between husband and wife during the marriage. Hagerman v. Wigent, 108 Mich. 192, 65 N. W. 756;Jenkinson v. Brook, 119 Mich. 108, 77 N. W. 640;Ward v. Oliver, 129 Mich. 300, 88 N. W. 631;Thayer v. Thayer, 154 N. W. 32. Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT