TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. Reilly

Frank B. Smith v. Cornelius J. Reilly, Circuit Judge of Wayne County

Smith v. Reilly, 45 N.W. 1122 (Mich. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 2, 1890
Citations
45 N.W. 112282 Mich. 93
Headnotes
Estates of deceased persons — Gommissioners on claims — Appeal— Discretion of court — Mandamus. The discretion exercised by a circuit judge in denying an application for leave to appeal from the report of commissioners on claims disallowing an account against the estate of a deceased person will not be reviewed, except in cases where it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused.
Summary
Mandamus. Relator applied for mandamus to compel respondent to allow an appeal from the report of commissioners on claims disallowing his claim against the estate of a deceased person. The- facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam.

The relator presented a claim against the estate of Moses W. Field, to the commissioners appointed on such estate, for $3,500. The decision of the commissioners disallowing the claim was filed November 23, 1889. No appeal was made or claimed by Smith from the report of the commissioners within 60 days, as required by statute; but on March 31, 1890, an application was made by C. C. Burt, as attorney for Smith, for leave to appeal from the report of the commissioners disallowing the claim, under How. Stat. §§ 5948, 6784. A hearing was had before the circuit judge, and the application denied. We are asked to review this action by mandamus.

*94 It is not necessary for us to recite the grounds upon which the application was based. The application was one which appealed to the discretion of the circuit judge, and we decline to review the exercise of such discretion, except in cases where it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused. There is nothing to indicate that in this case.

The application for mandamus will be denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1893: 11908: 11916: 11920: 11923: 11926: 11933: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Clark v. Berrien Circuit Judge160 N.W. 409 (Mich. 1916)
  2. Sanborn v. Mitchell54 N.W. 295 (Mich. 1893)
  3. Small v. Olds114 N.W. 872 (Mich. 1908)
  4. McKay v. Macomb Circuit Judge192 N.W. 542 (Mich. 1923)
  5. In re McLaughlin's Estate249 N.W. 479 (Mich. 1933)
  6. Conroy v. Jacobs' Estate211 N.W. 91 (Mich. 1926)

Most recent

  1. In re McLaughlin's Estate249 N.W. 479 (Mich. 1933)
  2. Conroy v. Jacobs' Estate211 N.W. 91 (Mich. 1926)
  3. McKay v. Macomb Circuit Judge192 N.W. 542 (Mich. 1923)
  4. Brown v. Brown177 N.W. 969 (Mich. 1920)
  5. Clark v. Berrien Circuit Judge160 N.W. 409 (Mich. 1916)
  6. Small v. Olds114 N.W. 872 (Mich. 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.

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