In re Nugent's Estate

• Decision Date: 08 November 1889
• Parties: IN RE NUGENT'S ESTATE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

43 N.W. 889

77 Mich. 500

IN RE NUGENT'S ESTATE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 8, 1889

Error to circuit court, Kent county.

CHAMPLIN J.

John Bresnahan was appointed administrator of the estate of Daniel Nugent, deceased, by the probate court of Kent county. The petition for the appointment was made by James Nugent, as one of the next of kin, and a creditor, of the deceased. The petition set forth that Daniel Nugent was not an inhabitant or resident of the state of Michigan at the time of his death, but was an inhabitant of the state of Colorado; and was possessed of estate situated in the county of Kent, to be administered, and that the estimated value thereof was as follows: Real estate, $1,000 and upwards; and, personal estate, $1,000 and upwards,-as the petitioner was informed and believed. The petitioner then sets forth the names and residences of the heirs at law, and others interested in the estate, and prays for citation and the appointment of Bresnahan. The appointment by the probate court was opposed but by whom, or upon what ground, does not appear from the record before us. Emanuel Nugent, a brother of the deceased appealed from the order appointing Bresnahan administrator to the circuit court for the county of Kent, for the following reasons: First, the deceased was not a resident or inhabitant of the state of Michigan; second, the deceased, at the time of his supposed death, resided in the state of Colorado, and did not leave any estate or property to be administered within the county of Kent, or within the state of Michigan third, the probate court has no jurisdiction in the matter; fourth, as appeared in the evidence adduced upon the hearing in said matter, the whole purpose of the application for administration of the estate of said deceased was to cause a suit in equity to be commenced against the appellant, Emanuel Nugent. The matter was tried in the circuit court, before the court without a jury, and the parties were permitted to go into an extended investigation upon the question as to whether Daniel Nugent had any estate in Kent county, to be administered; the petitioner claiming, and introducing testimony tending to prove, that the deceased was the owner of certain land, which he had fraudulently conveyed to his brother, Emanuel Nugent, with intent to defraud the petitioner, as a creditor of said Daniel. This showing was controverted by the contestant; and testimony was...