Parmalee v. Wigent's Estate
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Berrien; Bridgman, J. Albert F. Parmalee presented his claim for services-against the estate of Fidelia Wigent, deceased, which, was not allowed by the commissioners on claims, and claimant appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for defendant of no cause of action. Claimant brings-' error.
1Opinion of the CourtBrooke, C. J.
(after stating the facts). It will be unnecessary to notice in detail each assignment of error. The first, we think, is without merit.
The assignments referred to in the second class above set forth are, in part at least, well taken. We can perceive no reason why the plaintiff should not have been permitted to give testimony as to what he considered his services to be worth. Nor is there any reason why his witnesses, after having qualified by showing their knowledge of what he did, should not have been permitted to give their several opinions as to the value of such services. The admissibility…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In re Williams' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Sammon v. WoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Sword v. KeithMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Abel v. RoosenraadMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re Mazurkiewicz's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1950
- Duma v. JanniMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970
- Gange v. GangeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
- Sines v. Rader's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- In Re Estate of DonleyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.