Case Name: Frank B. Smith v. Cornelius J. Reilly, Circuit Judge of Wayne County
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1890-07-02
Citations: 82 Mich. 93
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank B. Smith v. Cornelius J. Reilly, Circuit Judge of Wayne County.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
Frank B. Smith v. Cornelius J. Reilly, Circuit Judge of Wayne County.
Estates of deceased persons — Gommissioners on claims — Appeal— Discretion of court — Mandamus.
The discretion exercised by a circuit judge in denying an application for leave to appeal from the report of commissioners on claims disallowing an account against the estate of a deceased person will not be reviewed, except in cases where it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused.
Mandamus.
Submitted June 24, 1890.
Denied July 2, 1890.
Relator applied for mandamus to compel respondent to allow an appeal from the report of commissioners on claims disallowing his claim against the estate of a deceased person. The- facts are stated in the opinion.
C. G. Burt, for relator'.
O. F. Hunt, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The relator presented a claim against the estate of Moses W. Field, to the commissioners appointed on such estate, for $3,500. The decision of the commissioners disallowing the claim was filed November 23, 1889. No appeal was made or claimed by Smith from the report of the commissioners within 60 days, as required by statute; but on March 31, 1890, an application was made by C. C. Burt, as attorney for Smith, for leave to appeal from the report of the commissioners disallowing the claim, under How. Stat. § 5948, 6784. A hearing was had before the circuit judge, and the application denied. We are asked to review this action by mandamus.
It is not necessary for us to recite the grounds upon which the application was based. The application was one which appealed to the discretion of the circuit judge, and we decline to review the exercise of such discretion, except in cases where it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused. There is nothing to indicate that in this case.
The application for mandamus will be denied.