Skip to content

Needham v. Gillett

Samuel Needham, adm'r v. Daniel Gillett, adm'r

Needham v. Gillett, 39 Mich. 574 (1878)

Court: Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 31, 1878
Judges: Marston, Other
Citations: 39 Mich. 5741878 Mich. LEXIS 367

Cited by 13

Headnotes

Estoppel from disturbing settlement of estate. Where an estate is not in debt, and the heirs-at-law, being of fuE age, carry out a settlement upon which they have all agreed, and by which they receive all that they could by virtue of an administration, they are estopped from disturbing it.

Summary

Certiorari to the Circuit Court for St. Joseph county. • Appeal from an order of the probate court appointing Daniel Gillett administrator of the estate of Harriet L. Bradley. Decedent’s sole property was a mortgage made to her by her brother Thaddeus Wilson, to secure his note for money lent to him by her. She died intestate leaving no kindred but Thaddeus Wilson and three other brothers, and they agreed that Thaddeus should pay decedent’s funeral expenses, and give each of the others $300 in full of their claims under the note and mortgage, for which they would discharge the mortgage, and they did so accordingly. Thaddeus afterwards died intestate, leaving a widow, but' ho heirs besides his three brothers, and Samuel Needham was appointed his administrator. On the petition of one of the surviving brothers Daniel Gillett was afterwards appointed administrator of the estate of Harriet L. Bradley. The widow and the administrator of Thaddeus Wilson appealed from the appointment, but the Circuit Court affirmed the order of the probate court, and they brought the proceedings to the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Marston

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Marston, J.

We can discover no good purpose that could be subserved by the appointment of an administrator in this case. WTiether, under the agreed facts, the settlement made between the heirs at law of Harriet L. Bradley, constitutes no legal bar to the granting of administration upon her estate, as claimed, or not, yet such settlement ought to and would equitably estop them from afterwards attempting to open or disturb it. It is *576 agreed that there are no creditors or others interested in this matter, and that the mortgage and note secured thereby represented the only property and all the property of which she was possessed at and previous to her decease. Nor were there any debts. Under such circumstances, where all the heirs at law, being of full age, meet and agree upon a settlement and division of the property, and the same is in good faith carried out, it would be strange indeed if they could retain what they had thus received, being all the law would have given them under any course of settlement by an administrator, and still commence proceedings to recover the same again.

This case is clearly distinguishable from those cited by counsel for defendant in error.

The proceedings in the probate court and judgment in the circuit must be reversed, set aside and held for naught, with costs to plaintiff in error.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

In re Estate of Meredith266 N.W. 351 (Mich. 1936)
Brown v. Forsche5 N.W. 1011 (Mich. 1880)
Richardson v. Cole61 S.W. 182 (Mo. 1901)
Christe v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.104 Iowa 707 (1898)
Foote v. Foote28 N.W. 90 (Mich. 1886)
Griffin v. Warburton62 P. 765 (Wash. 1900)

Most recent

Unkrodt v. Lane38 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio Ct. App. 1941)
In re Estate of Meredith266 N.W. 351 (Mich. 1936)
Campbell v. Detroit Trust Co.275 Mich. 278 (1936)
Johnson v. Sawyer1916 OK 567, 157 P. 933
Brobst v. Brobst155 N.W. 734 (Mich. 1916)
Brown v. Baxter94 P. 155 (Kan. 1908)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.