Legal Opinion

Hilton v. Briggs

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1884PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Van Buren. (Mills, J.) Debt. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtCooley, C. J.

The defendant Briggs is administrator upon the estate of Charles Gr. Nash, late of the county of Kalamazoo, who died intestate in August, 1882. The appointment as administrator was made September 11, 1882. In the following month Briggs filed an inventory showing property to the amount of $527.48, and also, under the head of “ Inventory of property belonging to E. O. Briggs and C. Gl. Nash, the undivided one-half of which belongs to C. Gr. Nash, deceased,” further property was specified, the undivided one-half of which was appraised at $16,141.44. The judge of probate heard and passed upon the…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hartwig v. FlynnSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
  2. Roberts v. WeadockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Simms v. GuessAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894
  4. Cheever v. EllisMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Peckham v. HoagMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API