Van Fleet v. Van Fleet

• Decision Date: 10 January 1883
• Citation: 14 N.W. 566,49 Mich. 610
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: VAN FLEET v. VAN FLEET.

14 N.W. 566

49 Mich. 610

VAN FLEET v. VAN FLEET.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 10, 1883

Act of 1881 authorizes administrators to take possession of the real estate of their decedents, is not retroactive in its terms and does not operate to give the right as against the heirs of a person whose estate was in administration before the passage of the statute, and whose heirs and devisees had already become vested with the interests to which they were entitled.

Courts are bonnd, wherever possible, to construe statutes so as to give them validity and a reasonable operation.

It is presumption that statutes operating on valuable rights do not operate retrospectively.

Error to St. Joseph.

H.H Riley and Dallas Boudeman, for plaintiff and appellant.

Charles Upson, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, J.

The only important question involved in the merits of this case is whether the act of 1881, which authorizes executors and administrators to take possession of the realty of deceased persons, is effectual to give such a right as against the heirs of a person whose estate was in administration some years before the statute was passed. The powers given by the statute include a power to lease from year to year, and cancel or modify any leases given by the decedent during his life-time, as he might have done himself, and to keep property in repair and receive rents and proceeds until the estate is settled or the land turned over to the heirs or devisees. Laws 1881, p. 278. It is manifest that in cases to which this statute can lawfully apply, heirs and devisees and those claiming under them would be subject to disturbance and ouster, and that when the representative has done nothing to estop him, such improvements as are made on such leases partitions or other dispositions made would be liable to be disregarded, except in the cases where relief can be had in the probate court on a special showing. Before this statute was passed the personal representative had no control over the realty except as power might be granted in certain cases to dispose of it. The rents belonged absolutely and completely to the heirs or devisees. They could rent sell or divide the property at their pleasure, subject only to the contingency of the granting of a license in the special cases provided by law, and then the rents and profits belonged to them up to the time of such disposal. That these are vested rights of an important and...