Legal Opinion

Kroll v. Estate of Ten Eyck

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1882PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Saginaw. Appeal from the disallowance of a claim against an estate. The claimant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, C. J.

Kroll brought a claim before commissioners who disallowed it, and he appealed. In order to give it a more formal shape he filed a declaration, but-counsel for the estate objected that the declaration made a different case from that determined by the commissioners. The question is practically unimportant, because the original form was produced and now appears in the record, and the *231controversy is fixed by it. No pleading conld change the identity of the case. Patrick v. Howard 47 Mich. 40.

• The demand alleged for certain commissions was not supported by any testimony, and there is no occasion…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Patrick v. HowardMichigan Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re De Haan's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Staniszewski v. LaneMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Campbell v. Davidson-Martin Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Hoff v. HoffMichigan Supreme Court · 1882

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

Powered by the Exa API