McGee v. Atkinson

• Decision Date: 07 July 1887
• Citation: 33 N.W. 737,66 Mich. 628
• Parties: MCGEE v. ATKINSON, Ex'r, etc.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

33 N.W. 737

66 Mich. 628

MCGEE v. ATKINSON, Ex'r, etc.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 7, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county.

Atkinson & Atkinson, for defendant and appellant.

CHAMPLIN J.

Susan McGee presented to the commissioners appointed by the probate court of Wayne county to hear claims against the estate of Jane McDonald, deceased, a claim for boarding the deceased in her life-time, which was allowed, and the executor appealed to the circuit court, where the action of the commissioners was affirmed, and the executor brings error.

There does not appear from the record before us that there was any written claim or bill of items filed before the commissioners by Mrs. McGee. The report of the commissioners on file in the probate court shows the following: "Susan McGee, board and rent claim, $105," and the amount allowed $105. When the case was called for trial in the circuit court, the executor requested the court to order an issue framed, so that it might appear at what date it was claimed the claimant furnished board to the testate, in order that he might interpose the plea of the statute of limitations if it should appear that it was more than six years before the death of his testator, and also that he might interpose a plea showing the disability of the decedent to enter into a contract, for the reason that she was under guardianship after a certain time. The court refused to order an issue. It is discretionary with the court whether it will order an issue framed; and while in this case, as the facts developed upon the trial showed, we can see that it would have been quite proper that one should have been made, we do not see that there was any necessity therefor made apparent in the application made by the executor. The defense of the statute of limitations was available to him upon the trial, as no claim that is barred by the statute is of any legal validity against the estate of deceased persons, and the facts relative to guardianship could be and were proved upon the trial.

Another defense offered was that the allowance of the claim of $105 was made after the report was returned and filed, and after the time in which the commissioners were allowed to hear claims had expired. Evidence tending to prove this defense was excluded at the trial. In this we think the court erred. If the claim was not presented to and passed upon by the commissioners before they made and filed their report, it was too late to do so afterwards. There would be no jurisdiction. The statute provides the method to be pursued by claimants who have failed to file their claims before the commissioners in due season. The executor and others interested have a right to appear, and contest the application for allowance or for a revival of the commission, or the appointment of new commissioners to allow claims that are not presented in time to the commissioners first appointed. If the claim was presented and allowed after their commission had expired, and the claim was inserted, as allowed, after their report was filed, it was without authority, and in fact and effect the trial in the circuit was the first time that that claim was passed upon as a claim against the estate; thus making the circuit court a court of original jurisdiction, so far as regards the claim in question. The probate court had no authority to permit such addition to the report. The object of appointing certain times for the meeting of the commissioners, and requiring notice thereof to be published is to afford an opportunity for those interested in the estate to appear, and oppose the allowance of claims presented against the estate; and it is proper that all claims should be presented on or before the day fixed for the final meeting of the commissioners, or on or before such day as the meeting at that time shall be regularly adjourned, in order that the object of the statute may be accomplished, and the estate protected from the presentation and allowance of fictitious and unjust claims.

It appears that Mrs. McDonald was a person who was addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors to excess; that application had been made in her behalf for a pension from the United States government, which she received; that, on account of her habits, on the ninth of April, 1880, Dr. Edmund A Chapaton was appointed guardian over her person and estate by the probate court of Wayne county; that while he was guardian, he provided suitable board and clothing for his ward; that he resigned...