TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lothrop v. Conely

Charles B. Lothrop, special adm'r v. Edwin F. Conely, com'rs on the estate of Denis J. Campau

Lothrop v. Conely, 39 Mich. 757 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 19, 1878
Judges
Campbell
Citations
39 Mich. 7571878 Mich. LEXIS 410
Headnotes
Estates of decedents — Appeal from, administrator’s appointment. Commissioners on a decedent’s estate are a special tribunal which, for most purposes, is independent of the probate court, and from which an appeal lies to the circuit. The proceedings of commissioners on an estate are not affected by an appeal from the order appointing the administrator, though it may temporarily suspend the hearing and disposal of claims unless there is a special administrator, and if there is, he should represent the estate.
Summary
Motion for writ of prohibition.

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

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

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

Campbell, C. J.

After the appointment of a general administrator commissioners were appointed to hear claims against the estate, and had given notices and entered on their duties. Afterwards an appeal was taken from the appointment of administrator and pending the- appeal a special administrator was appointed. The commissioners continued to act, and a motion is made for a prohibition, the facts being admitted.

Per Curiam. The appeal from the appointment of the administrator did not carry up with it any of the collateral proceedings and only stayed further proceedings in pursuance of the order appealed from. Comp. L., § 5225. The commissioners when once appointed become a special tribunal which for most purposes is independant of the probate court, and from which an appeal lies to the circuit court. There can be no reason why proceedings before them should be affected by such an *758 appeal, so long as no appeal has been taken from the order appointing them, which must stand by itself. If there were no one to represent the estate before them, there might be a temporary suspension of action by them in the actual hearing and disposal of claims, because the estate is interested in such disposal; but a special administrator has for that purpose the same duty as a general administrator and is bound to attend to the interests of the estate. We think the commissioners should proceed without reference to the appeal, and that the special administrator should represent the estate before them.

The prohibition must be denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1881–1882: 11885–1886: 11907–1908: 11925–1926: 11959–1960: 118812026peak 1881 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Patrick v. Howard10 N.W. 71 (Mich. 1881)
  2. In re Critchell Estate105 N.W.2d 417 (Mich. 1960)
  3. McNamara v. Michigan Trust Co.111 N.W. 1066 (Mich. 1907)
  4. Goodrich v. Hubbard's Estate206 N.W. 480 (Mich. 1925)
  5. Kimball v. Cannon26 N.W. 519 (Mich. 1886)

Most recent

  1. In re Critchell Estate105 N.W.2d 417 (Mich. 1960)
  2. Goodrich v. Hubbard's Estate206 N.W. 480 (Mich. 1925)
  3. McNamara v. Michigan Trust Co.111 N.W. 1066 (Mich. 1907)
  4. Kimball v. Cannon26 N.W. 519 (Mich. 1886)
  5. Patrick v. Howard10 N.W. 71 (Mich. 1881)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list