147 Mich. 544 | Mich. | 1907
Patrick M. Doyle is the administrator of the estate of Margaret Doyle, deceased. He
Patrick M. Doyle and Hannah D. Doyle were husband and wife. They had no children, and on April 6, 1881, by proceedings in the probate court, adopted Margaret Maud Campbell, changing her name to Margaret Gertrude Doyle. The parents of Margaret were both dead, leaving two children surviving them, this daughter and a son, James Campbell. Margaret, at the time of adoption, was three years old, and afterwards lived with and was reared by her foster parents. The adoption proceedings were had under a statute subsequently declared to be unconstitutional. Hannah D. Doyle died intestate June 30, 1902, leaving an estate of $5,000, inherited from her father. Her husband, Patrick M. Doyle, was appointed her administrator. In March, 1903, he made out his final account, showing all his receipts and disbursements, and an equal division of the balance belonging to the estate between himself and Margaret G. Doyle, of $2,192.83 each. Upon filing the receipts for these amounts in his petition accompanying the same, he prayed the court for the allowance of said account and for his discharge as administrator. In this final account he charged himself with $5,000, and was credited with $614.35, leaving a balance of $4,385.65. The receipt of Margaret for $2,192.83 accompanied the account, which was indorsed with her consent to its allowance, waiving all notice of hearing. This petition and account were filed September 24, 1903, and an order made and entered allowing the final account and discharging the administrator and canceling his bond. It is admitted that the $2,192.83 receipted for was never in fact paid over by the administrator to Margaret G. Doyle. She died September 26, 1903.
Patrick M. Doyle was appointed administrator of her
From this order and decree of said court an appeal was taken to the circuit court for Wayne county. By permission of the circuit court an amended account was filed, which did not include the charge of $1,851.66, and upon this account the case was tried in the circuit court. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the administrator and against the estate of $773; the jury having found specially, upon a question submitted by the circuit judge on his own motion, that Margaret G. Doyle had during her lifetime given to Patrick M. Doyle all the money received by her from the estate of Hannah D. Doyle. This is the judgment before this court for review, and we are asked to set it aside on account of errors committed upon the trial.
Counsel for the administrator contend that Margaret G. Doyle never received, and was not entitled to receive, any moneys from the estate of Hannah D. Doyle; that no part of said estate was ever assigned to her by order and judgment of the probate court; that such order was merely an allowance of the final account of the administrator and his discharge. If this contention is true, it will not
‘ ‘ The Court: How is it claimed that this money came to Margaret Doyle from her mother ?
“ Mr. Lawson: By an assignment in the probate court to that effect.”
Counsel for appellee asserts that in making this statement he was stating the claim of appellants in that regard. The portion of the order in question made in the matter of the estate of Hannah D. Doyle, necessary to quote in this connection, is as follows:
“Patrick M. Doyle, the administrator of said estate, having rendered to this court his final account in said matter, with the consent to its allowance indorsed thereon by all persons interested therein, upon examination: It is ordered that said account be, and the same is hereby, allowed as stated, with receipts and disbursements equal, and that said administrator be, and he is hereby, discharged and his bond canceled.”
This was not an adjudication by the court determining who was entitled to this estate and assigning the residue to such persons. It was merely an order settling and allowing the final account of the administrator and ordering his discharge. The account presented for allowance
This order did not vest in Margaret G. Doyle any estate or interest in the moneys from the estate of Hannah D. Doyle for which Margaret had receipted to the administrator. This is the only order by virtue of which it is claimed that she derived right and title to this money, and by means of which it is claimed to belong to her estate. The receipt given to the administrator cannot operate as vesting title in’her. It was given under the erroneous belief that she was the owner of the money. It was without consideration, as no money was received by her. She was not the heir of Hannah D. Doyle, the adoption having been illegal and void. The claimed admission of counsel on the trial that this money was assigned to Margaret G. Doyle by this order of the probate court is susceptible of the construction given to it by said counsel, and from the fact that it appears in the charge of the court that the question of the validity of the adoption was raised, and it was urged by appellants that the probate order was res adjudicata of the adopted daughter’s right to the property, it is clear that such was the position counsel took upon the trial. As a matter of law, as far as this record shows, all of the estate of Hannah D. Doyle belonged to her surviving husband. Because the probate proceedings were had upon the theory that one-half of Hannah D. Doyle’s estate belonged to Margaret cannot divest him of his title. The appellant, James Campbell, could only take such estate as vested in his sister, Margaret, at the time of her death. His rights must rest upon and be determined by the probate order we have considered, and by our construction of that order he acquired no rights.
This disposes of the case, and it is not necessary to consider the errors assigned. The estate of Margaret G. Doyle, other than this amount claimed from the foster
The judgment is affirmed.