John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Hill's Estate
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to "Wayne; Donovan, J. The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company had judgment upon a contingent claim against the estate of William R. Hill, deceased, and Clara K. Hanna, an heir of the deceased, brings error.
Read the full summary
Error to "Wayne; Donovan, J. The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company had judgment upon a contingent claim against the estate of William R. Hill, deceased, and Clara K. Hanna, an heir of the deceased, brings error. In 1881 one Henry Empey became agent for the claimant company, and executed a bond, with himself as principal and William R. Hill and Henry E. Rose as sureties, conditioned upon the faithful performance of his duties as agent, and accounting and paying over all sums of money which he might receive for said company. Mr. Hill died in 1882. His estate was settled in 1883, his…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). Two questions are raised:
1. Could such claim be filed and prosecuted before said court when there was no administrator to represent the estate and defend against said claim?
2. Had the claim accrued or become absolute more than a year prior to March 22, 1893, the day of filing the petition in the probate court ?
We need only consider the second question, as it is conclusive of the case.
The statute under which this claim was presented is as follows:
“If the claim of any person shall accrue or become absolute at any time after the time limited for creditors to present…
2Cited by2 opinions
- National Surety Co. v. Thayer's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Owen v. Ward's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1900