Court Opinion

ID: 7940238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 23:14:04.684945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:33:41.662903
License: Public Domain

Grant, C. J.
(dissenting). Claimant presented the following claim against the estate of Henry Van Voorheis, deceased:
Butternut, Mioh., Jan. 11th, 1897. Mortgage to Henry Van Voorheis, given July 13th, 1893, with interest at 7 per cent. Paid March 35th, 1896.
Amount--------------------------------------......$1,130 00
Interest for 3 yr., 8 mo., 13 d......................... 313 78
$1,343 78
,My claim, due March 35th____________________________ $343 78
The commissioners rejected the claim. Claimant appealed to the circuit court, which directed a verdict for the defendant, for two reasons: (1) That there was no claim presented to the commissioners upon which they could have acted; (3) that there was no consideration for the alleged promise, if any, as shown by the proofs. I think the court was correct upon the first point. There was nothing upon the face of the claim to indicate its nature, or what it was for. It was too indefinite to form the basis of an allowance by the commissioners. There was no request to frame an issue until the trial was over, and the circuit court was in the act of charging the jury. There must at least be an intelligible claim. As was said in Comstock v. Smith, 36 Mich. 306, “The true subject *343of dispute should clearly appear, and, where this is the case, the form is of little consequence.” In McHugh v. Dowd's Estate, 86 Mich. 412, a bill of particulars was filed, and we held that “the items are too vague and uncertain to permit proof to be given to charge the estate. ” In this view of the case, it is unnecessary to express any opinion upon the second point. I think the judgment should be affirmed.