In re Fraser's Estate
| Decision Date | 04 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 65.,65. |
| Citation | 285 N.W. 1,288 Mich. 392 |
| Parties | In re FRASER'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Donald A. Fraser, deceased, wherein Ethel Cook filed a petition in the probate court praying that the court order Isabelle M. Fraser, widow of deceased, to surrender certain securities in her possession to the administrator of the estate of Donald A. Fraser, deceased. From an unsatisfactory order of the circuit court, petitioner appeals.
Judgment in accordance with opinion.
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; William robertson, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Stanley C. Benedict, of Port Huron (Burt D. Cady, of Port Huron, of counsel), for appellant.
J. Frank Wilson, of Port Huron, for appellee.
Ethel Cook, daughter of Donald A. Fraser, deceased, filed a petition in the probate court of St. Clair county praying that that court order Isabelle M. Fraser, the widow of deceased, to surrender certain securities in her possession to the administrator of the estate of Donald A. Fraser, deceased. The widow, Isabelle M. Fraser, claimed the securities as her own property. The probate court ordered the surrender of the securities by her, and, on appeal, the circuit court held she was the owner thereof. Petitioner, Ethel Cook, appeals.
Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority, and a court may, and should, on its own motion, though the question is not raised by the pleadings or by counsel, recognize its lack of jurisdiction and act accordingly by staying proceedings, dismissing the action, or otherwise disposing thereof, at any stage of the proceeding. 15 C.J. p. 852; Bradley v. Board of State Canvassers, 154 Mich. 274, 117 N.W. 649;J. F. Hartz Co. v. Lukaszcewski, 200 Mich. 230, 167 N.W. 18;Bolton v. Cummings, 200 Mich. 234, 167 N.W. 19;Ideal Furnace Co. v. Molders' Union, 204 Mich. 311, 169 N.W. 946;Warner v. Noble, 286 Mich. 654, 282 N.W. 855. Jurisdiction cannot rest upon waiver or consent. Allen v. Carpenter, 15 Mich. 25;Kirkwood v. Hoxie, 95 Mich. 62, 54 N.W. 720,35 Am.St.Rep. 549;Hull v. Hull, 149 Mich. 500, 112 N.W. 1126;Maslen v. Anderson, 163 Mich. 477, 128 N.W. 723;People v. Meloche, 186 Mich. 536, 152 N.W. 918;Carpenter v. Dennison, 208 Mich. 441, 175 N.W. 419;Walsh v. Kent Circuit Judge, 225 Mich. 51, 195 N.W. 682;Shane v. Himelstein, 227 Mich. 465, 198 N.W. 909; 17 Am. & Eng.Enc. Law (2d Ed.), p. 1062; Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U.S. 315, 9 S.Ct. 289, 32 L.Ed. 690;Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 4 S.Ct. 510, 28 L.Ed. 462.
Probate courts have only special statutory jurisdiction. They derive their jurisdiction and powers from statute. Holbrook v. Cook, 5 Mich. 225;Grady v. Hughes, 64 Mich. 540, 31 N.W. 438;Hewitt v. Durant, 78 Mich. 186, 44 N.W. 318;Scholten v. Scholten, 238 Mich. 679, 214 N.W. 320;MacKenzie v. Union Guardian Trust Co., 262 Mich. 563, 247 N.W. 914;In re Donovan's Estate, 266 Mich. 362, 253 N.W. 552, 91 A.L.R. 1418;In re Estate of Jeffers, 272 Mich. 127, 261 N.W. 271;In re Estate of Meredith, 275 Mich. 278, 266 N.W. 351, 104 A.L.R. 348. They are incapable of dealing completely with ordinary rights. Detroit, L. & N. R. Co. v. Probate Judge, 63 Mich. 676, 30 N.W. 598;In re Graham's Estate, 276 Mich. 321, 267 N.W. 629.
It is not a proper function of the probate court to divest or decide upon vested rights of property. Besancon v. Brownson, 39 Mich. 388. It is not a proper tribunal to try title to personal property. Mitchell v. Bay Probate Judge, 155 Mich. 550, 119 N.W. 916, and cases cited; Rudolphi v. Gilbert, 209 Mich. 141, 176 N.W. 400; 90 A.L.R. 134, note.
The probate court had no jurisdiction. The circuit court had no greater jurisdiction of the case than had the probate court. 3 C.J. p. 366; 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error, § 41, page 121. The probate court having no jurisdiction, the circuit court acquired none by appeal, Northern Michigan Building & Loan Ass'n v. Fors, 171 Mich. 331, 137 N.W....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re AMB
...Brown on Jurisdiction, ž Ia. 11. Bandfield v. Wood, 104 Mich.App. 279, 282, 304 N.W.2d 551 (1981). 12. See In re Estate of Fraser, 288 Mich. 392, 394, 285 N.W. 1 (1939). 13. See M.C.L. ž 600.1021(1)(e); see also M.C.L. ž 14. See M.C.L. ž 712A.1(3) ("This chapter shall be liberally construed......
-
City of Novi v. Robert Adell Children's Funded Trust, Docket No. 122985. Calendar No. 6.
...J., dissenting) (quoting Fox v. Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents, 375 Mich. 238, 242, 134 N.W.2d 146 [1965], quoting In re Fraser's Estate, 288 Mich. 392, 394, 285 N.W. 1 [1939]). Because "`[t]he judicial power ... is the right to determine actual controversies arising between adverse litigant......
-
Moody v. Home Owners Ins. Co.
...judges presiding over these actions were duty-bound to recognize the limits of their subject-matter jurisdiction, In re Fraser Estate, 288 Mich. 392, 394, 285 N.W. 1 (1939),2 and either dismiss the cases brought by Moody and Hodge or transfer them to the circuit court, Fox v. Univ. of Michi......
-
Reed v. Yackell, Docket No. 126534. COA. No. 4.
... ... when services are performed by one who at the time expects compensation from another who expects at the time to pay therefor.'" In re Spenger Estate, 341 Mich. 491, 493, 67 N.W.2d 730 (1954), quoting In re Pierson's Estate, 282 Mich. 411, 415, 276 N.W. 498 (1937). As the Court of Appeals ... ...