*1 Surety 211 Co. Dick Stoddard specifications approved plans and and the architect’s by them.” constitute these letters

The contends that express promise pay to for the shores. can- them. Because the contractor’s not thus construe surety pay to for the furnished, failure material money company the disbursement had assumed owner; the' and its contract only promise ap- were the estimates was 'that as money applied proved by would be the architect the on the There was invoices for materials. promise pay than from no other source money received on contract. promise that a should

3. The contention .requires equally implied and no dis untenable cussion. judgment to the reversed, costs de-

fendant. JJ., concurred.

AMMOND v. MUSKEGON MOTOR SPECIALTIES CO. op op Servant^Qhange Pact 1. Master Question Condition — —Evidence., employee since order physical Whether condition had fact, question made is a evidence in thereof is made without reversed. Michigan Reports. Change op Compensa-

2. Same — and Error — Condition — tion. *2 Employee, a grinder, earn injury who hand, received re- turned to work requiring appeal use of hand and did not erroneously may entered order compensation, reopen question compensation only by of a of physical condition. J., dissenting. Department Industry. of Labor and (Docket Submitted 10, October No. 137, Cal- 37,226.) No. endar Decided December against . Fred Ammond his claim Muske- gon Specialties Company, employer, Motor Company, Metals Mutual Insurance for in- insurer, juries employ. while defendant’s On petition compensation. plain- for further Award to appeal. tiff. Defendants Reversed. (Robert

Christian A. Broek M. of Anderson, counsel), plaintiff. Campan,

Francis D. for defendants. This McDonald, C. J. from an award compensation by department of the of labor and industry. July plaintiff

On 26, 1930, suffered an acci- injury employed grinder by dental while as a cam Muskegon Specialties the defendant, Motor Com- pany. It is that conceded the accident arose out employment. injuries the course of his resulting from the accident were a fracture finger, finger, left index dislocation of the middle fingers, contusion laceration of all the thumb earning agree- and hand. He a was week. An $27 approved by ment was into entered Specialties Ammond v. Motor employer August providing for with the 13,1930, on payment Payments a week. were continued $18 agreement at which under the until 15,1930, October application was time on an order the defendant by deputy a made commissioner by tion. The order was affirmed appeal. After this the taken was back night wages work as a watchman at less but as longer worked hours he received the same as he receiving injured. working year when After night discharged. and a half as watchman he was Following this he worked for awhile as a meat cutter but was unable to continue because of the condition hand. He then his filed a for further granted by deputy which was com- *3 appeal by department. missioner and affirmed appealed. From this award the defendants have The issue is one of fact. To sustain the appear plaintiff’s physical award it must that the changed condition has since the order was made stopping compensation on October Wash v. burn Jackson & 229 Mich. Tindle, found condition but opinion plaintiff’s neither in the filed nor in the brief support is there finding. reference to evidence in of the testimony attempt

In taken* no consequently made to show a none was change. shown. In fact there was no On the hear- ing stop compensation of the the medical testimony then taken shows that physical condition was the same as it is now. The discharged him doctor had and he was taken back to employment at in work but which it was not neces- sary injured to use his hand. At that time he was today. extent disabled to same as he is think the erred Michigan Reports. appealed

tion as that but order was uot from the reopened except matter cannot be on a changed condition.

As no evidence to department,' the award is reversed. JJ., concurred C. J. McDonald, J. I dissent from the conclusion herein. McKANA ENGLUND. 1. Executors Administrators —Widow’s Allowance —Waiver. right Widow entitled to as a matter of if the estate is administered unless a consideration she agreed waived it has or distribution without administration. Estoppel. 2. Same —Collateral ^Attack — family agreement may collaterally Parties to at- by proceeding equity tack administration estate where they appointing did not from order administrator and *4 participated in have the administration of the estate. Family Agreement Same — Settlement —Widow’s Allowance. Family agreement providing merely settlement for distribution property of estate not bar does widow’s Comp. 15553). (3 Laws § Family Agreement— 4. Descent Distribution — Settlement Fraud. Family agreement for of property distribution valid, being no evidence fraud.