Case Name: In re HOFFMAN'S ESTATE. MICHIGAN TRUST CO. v. HOFFMAN
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1914-07-24
Citations: 183 Mich. 67
Docket Number: Docket No. 30
Parties: In re HOFFMAN’S ESTATE. MICHIGAN TRUST CO. v. HOFFMAN.
Judges: Brooke, C. J., and McAlvay, Kuhn, Stone, Bird, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 183
Pages: 67–81

Head Matter:
In re HOFFMAN’S ESTATE. MICHIGAN TRUST CO. v. HOFFMAN.
1. Appeal and Error — Review—Trial by Court.
It is only where there is a total want of evidence, or where the finding is contrary to the undisputed evidence, that the facts found by the trial court, sitting without a jury, can be overturned on error.
2. Same — Briefs.
And assignments of error that are not discussed in the briefs of appellant will not be considered.
ON REHEARING.
3. Appeal and Error — Findings of Fact — Saving Questions fob Review.
On writ of error the Supreme Court reviews the action of' the court below on questions of law only, but examines the conclusions of that court on questions of fact for the purpose of determining such questions of law as arise upon them.
4. Same — Equity—Distinctions.
Such proceeding in reviewing the determination of the trial court on the accounting of the trustee of a decedent’s estate is not a chancery appeal or to be treated like one. The court should be informed by appellant of the errors of law relied upon.
5. Trusts — Accounting—Evidence.
Held, on a review of the question of fact whether the action of a trustee in investing the funds of a deceased minor in a fiat or apartment building was ratified by the minor after he became of age and before his death, that the finding of the circuit judge was supported by the, evidence and that there was sufficient testimony supporting the judgment and determination of the court in favor of such ratification.
Appeal from Allegan; Cross, J.
Submitted April 14, 1914.
(Docket No. 30.)
Decided July 24, 1914.
Rehearing granted December 19, 1914.
Affirmed June 7, 1915.
Clayton H. Hoffman, trustee of the estate of Israel O. Hoffman, deceased, filed his final account which was allowed in probate court. The Michigan Trust Company, administrator of the estate of Roscoe C. Hoffman, one of the persons interested in said estate of Israel O. Hoffman, appealed from the final order: Bessie Hoffman, personally and as guardian of Mabel G. Hoffman, an infant, joined in the appeal. The circuit court entered a final order modifying in part the judgment of the probate court. Appellants bring error.
Affirmed.
Norris, McPherson & Harrington, for appellants.
A. C. Hindman (Myron H. Walker, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appointed by the probate court under Act No. 253, Public Acts of 1899 (4 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 10710 et seq.), trustee of an estate belonging to himself and his brother, the estate being created by the will of their father, Clayton H. Hoffman filed certain accounts in probate court at the instance of the administrator of his brother's estate and the guardian of his infant child. After a hearing in probate court, an appeal from the order entered was taken to the circuit court. In the circuit court the cause was tried by the court without a jury. A finding was requested and was made and filed. Appellants, the administrator and guardian, filed exceptions and moved to amend the finding. One additional finding was made; in other respects the motion was denied. Exceptions were filed to the refusal to amend the finding as requested. A judgment was entered, and the record is brought into this court for review upon assignments of error 33 in number.
An examination of the brief for appellants and of the errors assigned suggests the inquiry whether there is any point properly open to review in this court. Neither party presented to the trial court points of law to be passed upon as the rule permitted them to do.
It is alleged as error that the facts found do not support the judgment. It is not alleged, either in exceptions or assignments of error, that any finding is wholly unsupported by evidence. It is alleged in some of the exceptions, and restated in the assignments of error, that certain findings "are contrary to the fact and the evidence in said cause." To this allegation there is added, in some instances: "And is erroneous in law." It is assigned as error (assignments 19-29) that the court refused to amend the finding as requested, but these and most of the other assignments rest ultimately upon what the facts are found to be. No objection is made to the form or extent of the findings. Circuit Court Rule 26 reads, in part, as follows:
"(d) The finding of the facts by the court shall be treated in all respects as a special verdict, and error may be alleged that the same does not support the judgment, as on a special verdict."
It is only where there is a total want of evidence or where the finding is contrary to the undisputed evidence that the facts found by the trial court can be overturned. Upon this point the decisions of this court have been many times repeated. See notes to Stevens' Rules of Practice (2d Ed.).
The first two assignments of error are based upon rulings admitting testimony. We do not find either discussed in the brief. The assignment that the facts found do not support the judgment, which is open for our consideration, does not appear to be discussed in the brief.
We therefore affirm the judgment.