Case Name: Amaniah F. Freeman, Administrator, etc., v. The Washtenaw Probate Judge
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1890-01-31
Citations: 79 Mich. 390
Docket Number: 
Parties: Amaniah F. Freeman, Administrator, etc., v. The Washtenaw Probate Judge.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 390–391

Head Matter:
Amaniah F. Freeman, Administrator, etc., v. The Washtenaw Probate Judge.
Estates of deceased persons — Widow's allowance — Notice to administrator — Appeal.
1. An administrator is entitled to notice of the application of the widow for an allowance for her support pending the settlement of the estate, under How. Stat. § 5847, and to be heard upon such allowance, and an order made without such notice is void.
2. No formal or sworn petition is required to be presented by a widow to the probate court to obtain an order for an allowance for her support, under How. Stat. § 5847.
3. Orders for allowances to widows, under How. Stat. § 5847, are in the discretion of the probate judge, who may modify or rescind them at any time, and appellate courts will not interfere, except where there has been an abuse of discretion.
Mandamus.
Submitted January 28, 1890.
Denied January 31, 1890.
Delator applied for mandamus to vacate an order granting a widow an allowance under the statute. The facts are stated in the opinion.
A. F. Freeman, in pro. per., for relator.
J. Willard BalMtt, for respondent.
Whether an appeal will lie from such an order is questioned in Moore v. Moore, 48 Mich. 273.

Opinion:
Grant, J.
Mandamus to compel the respondent to set aside an order allowing $200 to the widow of deceased, under How. Stat. § 5847.
The order was allowed by the respondent upon the yerbal application of the widow, and after an examination under oath as to its necessity, but without any notice to the relator. TJpon receiving notice of its allowance, he protested against it, claiming that it was void because no petition had been filed and no hearing had, and also claiming that no necessity existed for the allowance. Subsequently the widow filed a petition, and relator was duly cited to appear. He appeared, and a full hearing was had; whereupon the respondent affirmed the former order.
We think the administrator is entitled to notice, and. to be heard upon the allowance to the widow during the progress of the settlement of the estate. He represents jffié heirs and the creditors, and is supposed to be familiar with the condition of the estate. It is his duty to look ^nto the needs of the widow and children, and inform the court in the premises. Such an order, made without notice to him, would be void, and would be set aside. Upon the protest of relator,, all proceedings under the first order seem to have .been abandoned, and a petition filed. 'If upon the hearing of this petition the respondent exercised his discretion, and affirmed the former order because he considered it a reasonable allowance, then this Court will not interfere. Moore v. Moore, 48 Mich. 273 (12 N. W. Rep. 180). We assume that the respondent affirmed the former order for that reason.
No formal or sworn petition is required to be presented by widows to probate courts to obtain allowances under this statute. These orders are in the discretion of the probate judge, and he may modify or rescind them at any time. It is the policy of our statutes to leave such allowances to the sound discretion of the probate judge, and appellate courts will not interfere, except where there has been an abuse of discretion.
The writ is denied.
The other Justices concurred.