Haug v. Primeau
| Decision Date | 08 December 1893 |
| Citation | 57 N.W. 25,98 Mich. 91 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | HAUG v. PRIMEAU. |
Appeal from circuit court, Houghton county, in chancery; Norman W Haire, Judge.
Bill in equity by Mary Haug against Peter Primeau. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Hubbell & Gray, for appellant.
Dunstan & Hanchette, for appellee.
Bill to remove cloud from title. Complainant married one Michael Haug, December 30, 1889. He died intestate July 19, 1890 leaving no children surviving him. July 10, 1891, Mathias Haug petitioned the probate court for administration upon the estate of Michael Haug. He averred in his petition that he was interested in the estate as a half-brother of the deceased; that the deceased died seised of real state of the value of $400, but left no personal estate; that the heirs at law were Mary Haug, his wife, aged 30 years, and the petitioner, a half-brother, both residents of this state, and also Anna Haug, his mother, Andrew Haug, a half-brother Barbara Haug, a sister, and Anna Allers, a step-sister, all resident in Germany. Due notice was given of the hearing of this petition, and Mathias Haug was appointed administrator of the estate, and he duly qualified and proceeded to act as such. Notice to creditors to file claims was duly given, and at the expiration of the time fixed for filing, no claims having been filed, the administrator, on February 2, 1892, filed his petition in the probate court praying for the sale of the interest of the deceased in lands. In his petition he alleged that no personal property of the deceased had come into his hands, and that the only personal estate belonging to the deceased consisted of some household furniture of the value of $250, which had been selected by the widow under the statute. He further averred in this petition that there were no debts outstanding against the estate, and that no claim had been allowed against it; that the charges and expenses of administering the estate, including the future probable charges and expenses, would amount to the sum of $250; that it was necessary, for the purpose of paying said charges and expenses, to raise the said sum of $250 by the sale of said lands; that said lands were wild and uncultivated, yielded no income whatever, but that the interest of the deceased in said lands was worth $200. He further set forth the names of the heirs at law and persons interested in the estate, as above specified. The probate court ordered the sale as prayed. It was duly advertised, the necessary bond and oath filed, and the sale made on May 21, 1892, to the defendant in this suit for the sum of $120. A report of the sale was made and confirmed, and a deed to the purchaser ordered and made on that date. The administrator afterwards made and filed his final account, which was allowed. This account showed the receipt of the $120, the purchase price of the land, and the expenses, as follows: "Publishing and printing the necessary legal notice, $40.65; taxes paid, $24.23; attorney fees paid, $50; administrator's commission, $6,-total, $120.88;" leaving a balance due the administrator of 88 cents. Afterwards, and on October 17, 1892, upon a proper petition and hearing, the administrator was duly discharged, and his bond and letters of administration canceled. October 19, 1892, the complainant filed this bill, praying that the defendant be required to quitclaim to her an undivided one-half interest in said lands; that such one-half interest was worth $500; and that the deed given to defendant upon said sale be canceled and set aside as to that one-half interest. Defendant appeared and filed a general demurrer to the bill, which was overruled by the court below, and this appeal is taken by the defendant.
Complainant claims by her bill that the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial