Hitchcock v. Gennesee Probate Judge
| Decision Date | 20 February 1894 |
| Citation | 99 Mich. 128,57 N.W. 1097 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | HITCHCOCK v. GENESEE PROBATE JUDGE. |
Mandamus on relation of Lyman J. Hitchcock, administrator c. t. a. of the estate of P. A. Skinner, deceased, to the Genesee probate judge to vacate an order. Writ granted.
Durand & Carton, for relator. Edward S. Lee, for respondent.
P. A Skinner died leaving a will which contained a bequest to his wife of $2,000. Claims against the estate were heard by the judge of probate. The widow presented the following antenuptial agreement: The judge of probate admitted testimony tending to show that the purpose of the bequest made by the will was the performance of this agreement, and rejected the claim, reporting thereon as follows: "Disallowed because the testator provided in will a legacy in lieu of said debt, as shown by the evidence." Within 30 days thereafter the widow filed her election to take under the statute and not under the will, and then filed her petition setting forth such election, asking leave "to file another claim against said estate for the allowance of said debt, * * * and that if any order has been made disallowing said claim, that the same may be set aside or modified, and a rehearing granted, and the matter of hearing claims reopened." The judge of probate granted the prayer of the petition, and the administrator applies for a mandamus directing a vacation of said order. It appears that the circuit judge was, before taking his seat upon the bench one of the attorneys in the matter, and the case is properly here. Even though it be true that the bequest in the will was intended to be in lieu of the claim presented, the judge of probate erred in disallowing the claim for that reason, and claimant should have appealed from such disallowance. Decedent could not, by the bequest, postpone the payment of a valid claim until the payment of all other creditors. The proper time to raise the question as to the widow's right to the bequest would have been upon the distribution of the estate. The probate court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, and judge of probate has no power to set aside his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ross
...for not applying to the district court for a writ of mandamus that that court had in a similar suit denied the writ. In Hitchcock v. Taylor, 99 Mich. 128, 57 N.W. 1097, it was held that the fact that the circuit judge before taking his seat upon the bench had been one of the attorneys to th......
-
In re Esate of Coryell's
... ... OF DECEASED PERSONS-CLAIMS AGAINST-ALLOWANCE BY PROBATE ... JUDGE-EFFECT-RIGHT OF HEIRS TO CONTEST-APPEALABLE ORDERS ... (2 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., ... 1004; Hitchcock v. Genessee Probate Judge, 99 Mich ... 128, 57 N.W. 1097; In re Hudson, ... ...
-
Dowling v. Stiles (In re Dowling's Estate)
...Except for this limited statutory jurisdiction probate courts would be without power to grant rehearings. Hitchcock v. Taylor, Judge of Probate, 99 Mich. 128,87 N.W. 1097. Judge Higbee was without jurisdiction to rehear and review the adjudication by Judge Dalton made more than five years e......
-
State v. Ross
...for not applying to the district court for a writ of mandamus that that court had in a similar suit denied the writ. In Hitchcock v. Taylor, 99 Mich. 128, 57 N.W. 1097, was held that the fact that the circuit judge, before taking his seat upon the bench, had been one of the attorneys to the......