Stackable v. Stackpole
| Decision Date | 21 April 1887 |
| Citation | 32 N.W. 808,65 Mich. 515 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | STACKABLE v. STACKPOLE. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county.
Fraser & Gates, for defendant and appellant.
Claimant was allowed by the commissioners on claims the sum of $1,040.43 against the estate of the deceased. Upon appeal to the circuit by the appellant, who is one of the brothers of deceased, a jury awarded the claimant $917.13. The appellant brings the case here by writ of error. The name of the deceased was George Stackpole, but the proceedings in the probate court were entitled "In the Matter of the Estate of George Stackable, Deceased."
At the time of his death, three lots on Sixteenth street, in the city of Detroit, were held jointly in the name of himself and William Stackpole, his brother, and the husband of the claimant. These lots were deeded to them October 30, 1872 for a consideration of $1,800. George Stackpole died intestate and unmarried, in June, 1883, his heirs being five brothers. His brother William, under the name of Stackable, was appointed administrator, November 20 1883. It is claimed by the other brothers that they had no notice of the proceedings under which William became administrator.
The claim filed by William's wife was for $510 claimed to have been loaned by her to the deceased,--$200 for board furnished him, and the balance for completing and repairing houses on the lots owned by deceased and her husband.
The circuit judge allowed the claimant to testify that, at her husband's request, she paid for various improvements and repairs on these houses, and also a paving assessment upon the property, with her own money. This evidence was objected to as incompetent under the statute, inasmuch that, if the deceased was present or knew of the payments, the fact of such payments were equally within his knowledge. And, as there was a claim made that the payments were with the money of deceased in claimant's hands, the fact as to whom the money belonged was also equally within the knowledge of deceased. It is further claimed that there was no evidence that William had any authority to bind his brother by such requests. There was considerable evidence in the case tending to show that in fact the deceased's money bought these lots, and that he sent money from the Black Hills, where he was mining, at various times, to his brother William, and also, while in Detroit, gave his wages to claimant, and that she stated that she had $800 or more of his money in the bank. When some of the payments were made by the claimant, for which she seeks to recover from the estate, it appeared by her own testimony that the deceased was present. The law will not allow her to give evidence as to such payments. There is no evidence in the record that William had any authority from the deceased to request his wife to repair these buildings, or to repair them himself at the expense of George. It also appears that some of the buildings were rented, and the claimant received the rent. We do not think she made any case against the estate for these payments.
In regard to the board, it was shown that William was the head of...
To continue reading
Request your trial