In re Hiscock's Estate

• Decision Date: 20 February 1890
• Citation: 79 Mich. 536,44 N.W. 947
• Parties: In re HISCOCK'S ESTATE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

44 N.W. 947

79 Mich. 536

In re HISCOCK'S ESTATE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 20, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Lenawee county.

Westerman & Westerman, for appellant.

Weaver & Bean, for appellee.

CAMPBELL J.

A claim was allowed to Abraham Hanford against the estate of deceased, which consisted of a series of charges, beginning in 1871. Orrin Hiscock died in March, 1886. Down to the close of 1876 all the debit items were for board of Hiscock and wife, except one for a nurse, and $152 for funeral expenses and $225 money lent. Mrs. Hiscock died December 1, 1875, and Orrin Hiscock is charged for no board since November, 1876. Previous to that time there are two credits for "cash on board," and no others. In 1878 and 1879 there are two unexplained credits of cash. There are no other items on either side, until 1883 and 1884. Mrs. Hiscock went to board with Hanford in June, 1871. Mr. Hiscock went in September, 1871. The only verbal testimony as to rate of board is that of a daughter of Hanford, that after Mr Hiscock's arrival, in the fall of 1871, Mr. Hiscock agreed to pay $2.50 a week for the board and care of each. Mr. Hanford was allowed to prove his claim by what is claimed to be a book of original entries. He produced two witnesses who swore to having settled labor accounts with him, and found the book correct. The undertaker swore that Hanford ordered all that he furnished for the funeral, and paid for it. A witness testified to an admission by decedent, some time in 1875, that he had borrowed $225 of Hanford. This appears in the account as of January 18, 1876, by a charge evidently not then entered. There was proof of borrowing $25, in 1884, and of payment of a small note of Hiscock in October, 1884, but no proof that it was at Hiscock's request There is also testimony in regard to getting a cow, which is a little obscure, and some other matters in 1884, not fully explained. The account was allowed for the full balance claimed by Hanford, going back to the beginning. Most of it depended on the accounts as entered. Two main objections are made: First, that the items through 1876 are barred by limitation; and, second, that the book-account was not admissible, and that the accounts should have been proved. Both objections are well founded. The statute of limitations, which excepts certain accounts from its operation, is confined to such as make "a mutual and open account current." It must be mutual as well as open. This, according to the consistent course...