Reithmaier v. Beckwith
| Decision Date | 24 October 1876 |
| Citation | 35 Mich. 110 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Salomi Reithmaier v. William G. Beckwith |
Submitted on Briefs October 12, 1876
Case made from Kent Circuit.
The case in the court below was an appeal from the decision of commissioners on claims disallowing the claim presented by plaintiff against the estate of her husband, John Reithmaier which was contested by defendant as administrator. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and a special finding made and filed, upon which judgment was rendered in favor of the claimant.
The finding was in substance: (1) That the claimant was wife of decedent, who died June 22, 1875, intestate; (2) That prior to December 5, 1872, the claimant left her husband (decedent) and filed her bill for a divorce against him, which suit was pending December 5, 1872, when, in consideration of a settlement of the difficulties between them, the discontinuance by her of the divorce suit, and her returning to live with him, he executed and delivered to her an instrument in writing of the following tenor:
"For value received I promise to pay to Salomi Reithmaier or order, the sum of five hundred dollars without interest, said sum to be payable out of my estate in thirty days after my death, said sum being intended as a gift to said Salomi Reithmaier, over and above all claims she may have against my estate, either as my widow or under any will and testament heretofore or hereafter made by me."
(3) That defendant is administrator of decedent's estate, and that plaintiff's claim was duly presented to the commissioners on claims and by them disallowed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Thompson & Pratt, for plaintiff.
W. L Stoughton, for defendant.
The only question raised by the assignments of error in this case is, whether the facts found support the judgment, and we are of opinion they do. The instrument upon which plaintiff claimed the right to recover was more than a mere promise to make a gift. It was an absolute agreement, given upon a good and valuable consideration, actually delivered to the plaintiff, and upon being so delivered, it passed beyond the power and control of the party executing it. He could not after the delivery recall it. The plaintiff, upon receiving this instrument, became the absolute owner thereof, and might have sold and transferred the same to third parties. The fact that it was made payable after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowers v. Hutchinson
...605; 18 Ch. Div. 670; 113 Mass. 255; 3 Metc. 503; 18 Am. Rep. 476; 54 Pa.St. 110; S. C. 42 Am. 271; 8 Ga. 341; 3 Pa.St. 100; 37 Mich. 563; 35 Mich. 110; 107 Pa.St. 18; 89 Am. Dec. 172; 113 Mass. 257; 22 Barb. 97; 41 Barb. 92; 37 N.Y. 621; 8 W. & S. 102; 1 Blackf. 97; 14 Ohio 257; 7 Johns. 5......
-
Fisher v. Koontz
...of the married relations, has been held a sufficient and valid consideration for a conveyance of land or promise to pay money. Reithmaier v. Beckwith, 35 Mich. 110; Duffy v. White, 115 Mich. 264 (73 N.W. Adams v. Adams 91 N.Y. 381; Phillips v. Meyers, 82 Ill. 67; Burkholder's Appeal, 105 Pa......
-
Duffy v. White
...and the same has been held elsewhere, almost without exception. See Rozell v. Redding, 59 Mich. 331, 26 N.W. 498; Reithmaier v. Beckwith, 35 Mich. 110; Adams Adams, 91 N.Y. 381; and other cases cited in the defendants' brief. The case cited from New York expressly holds that the discontinua......
-
Fisher v. Koontz
...of the married relations, has been held a sufficient and valid consideration for a conveyance of land or promise to pay money. Reithmaier v. Beckwith, 35 Mich. 110;Duffy v. White (Mich.) 73 N. W. 363;Adams v. Adams, 91 N. Y. 381;Phillips v. Meyers, 82 Ill. 67; Burkholder's Appeal, 105 Pa. S......