Legal Opinion

Buchoz v. Pray

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1877PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Washtenaw Circuit. to the point that an appeal would not lie from the action of claim commissioners upon contingent claims, cited: 1 Mich., 193; 3 Mich., 163; 20 Mich., 366; 3 Mass., 309; B Mass., 614; 5 Johns., 174; 3 Wend., 494; 4 Bill, 207; 8 Post., 520; and that mandamus was the proper remedy to compel them, if they refused to perform their duty: Moses on Mand., 14; 23 Wend., 456; 35 Barb., 408; 24 N. T., 114; 11 Abbott Pr., 17; 37 Barb., 466. cited: Clark v.…

Read the full summary

Error to Washtenaw Circuit. to the point that an appeal would not lie from the action of claim commissioners upon contingent claims, cited: 1 Mich., 193; 3 Mich., 163; 20 Mich., 366; 3 Mass., 309; B Mass., 614; 5 Johns., 174; 3 Wend., 494; 4 Bill, 207; 8 Post., 520; and that mandamus was the proper remedy to compel them, if they refused to perform their duty: Moses on Mand., 14; 23 Wend., 456; 35 Barb., 408; 24 N. T., 114; 11 Abbott Pr., 17; 37 Barb., 466. cited: Clark v. Davis, 32 Mich., 159.

1Opinion of the Court

Graves, J:

Judge Ninde, Conrad Krapf and Asher A. Terry, having been appointed under ch. 158, G. L., commissioners on claims' against the estate of Louis R. Buchoz, deceased, Joseph Pray presented a contingent claim he held against the estate, together with his proof thereof.

February 25th, 1876, the commissioners made their report to the probate court and therein set down the presentation of the contingent claim by Pray and that it was disallowed. The report neither contained nor was technically accompanied by the proof made on the claim. At the same time, however, a full and perfect report…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bacon v. ThorpSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1858

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Rankin v. City of Big RapidsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904
  2. Campau v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Rankin v. HerodU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1905
  4. Teagan v. SchramCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1940
  5. Crosby v. Montcalm Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API