In re La Freniere's Estate
| Decision Date | 28 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 38,October term, 1948.,38 |
| Citation | 36 N.W.2d 147,323 Mich. 562 |
| Parties | In re LA FRENIERE'S ESTATE. In re LE CLAIR'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Marquette County; Frank A. Bell, judge.
In the matter of the estate of Ellen La Freniere, deceased. From a judgment allowing the first and second annual accounts of Peter La Freniere, as administrator of the estate, Albert W. Hooper, administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Emeline LeClair, deceased, appeals.
Cause remanded for re-examination of the accounts and entry of a new judgment in conformity with the Supreme Court's opinion.
Before the Entire Bench.
Albert W. Hooper, of Ishpeming, in pro per.
Michael J. Kennedy, of Ishpeming, for administrator and estate of administrator.
This is an appeal by Albert W. Hooper, administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Emeline LeClair, deceased, from a judgment of the circuit court for the county of Marquette, entered July 7, 1947.
The controversy involves certain items in the first and second annual accounts of the administrator of the estate of Ellen La Freniere, deceased, which were before this Court in Re LaFreniere's Estate, 316 Mich. 285, 25 N.W.2d 252, in which a previous judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. At the new trial the judge sitting without a jury filed written findings of facts and law and, in accordance with such findings, allowed certain charges against the estate and disallowed others. The facts stated in Re LaFreniere's Estate, supra, will not be repeated here.
Appellant contends that the items in the accounts covering moneys paid by the administrator for the hospital, medical and funeral expenses of the deceased are not proper charges against her estate, and also that certain items totaling $82.48 for meals and cab fares and $4.00 for a mass should not have been allowed. It is argued as to the first group that the late Peter La Freniere, who was the administrator of his wife's estate, was individually liable for these expenditures. It is argued that even if the Ellen LaFreniere estate is liable, it was the administrator's obligation under the death act, Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 14061, 14062, to recover the amount of these expenditures penditures against the tort-feasor, and having so recovered, there should be no allowance in his account. As to the second group it is argued that these charges were neither reasonable nor proper.
In the action brought for her unlawful death, Ellen LaFreniere's administrator, Peter LaFreniere, obtained a judgment in the sum of $5,500, and, as required by law, this judgment was certified to the probate court and apportioned as follows: $4,862 to her surviving husband, Peter LaFreniere, for his pecuniary losses, and $638 to deceased's mother, Emeline LeClair, for her pecuniary losses, they being the sole heirs at law of the deceased. There was no appeal for this apportionment. There being no unpaid claims against the estate when this judgment was satisfied, the proceeds thereof were thus distributed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Ottawa Community Hosp. v. Kieft
...in this state. See Pritchard v. Bigger, 288 Mich. 447, 450, 285 N.W. 17 (1939) (opinion of BUSHNELL, J.), In re LaFreniere's Estate, 323 Mich. 562, 564, 36 N.W.2d 147 (1949), Detroit v. Eisele, 362 Mich. 684, 686, 108 N.W.2d 763 (1961). 7 The doctrine, which attempted to "obviate some of th......
-
Stowers v. Wolodzko
...(repealed 1965, see §§ 6030--6033), 5751 (renumbered § 6250), 5752 (renumbered § 6251).' This Court stated in In re LaFreniere's Estate (1949), 323 Mich. 562, 36 N.W.2d 147, that: 'The general rule is that a husband is primarily liable for the payment of his wife's reasonable medical, hospi......
-
Stowers v. Ardmore Acres Hospital
...to which it is proposed to confine the patient. Defendant was on the staff at Ardmore Acres.5 The cases of In re LaFreniere's Estate (1949), 323 Mich. 562, 36 N.W.2d 147, and City of Detroit v. Eisele (1961), 362 mich. 684, 108 N.W.2d 763, do not so hold.6 A competent married woman is empow......
-
City of Detroit v. Eisele
...which would preclude a summary judgment? Medical treatment is a necessity for which a husband is primarily liable. In re LaFreniere's Estate, 323 Mich. 562, 36 N.W.2d 147. The following cases indicate that a wife can bind her separate estate for necessities, but in each case it was shown th......