*1 Michigan Reports. supports a conclusion; moreover, The record parties Rappaport’ Longsdorf are not Solomon, binding en- this decree could not be suit and against forced them. affirmed, trial court is costs decree plaintiff. J., C. Boyles, Butzel, Carr, Bushnell, Reid, part J., took no JJ.,
and in the decision of this case. concurred. Starr,
In re FARWELL’S ESTATE. Appeal prom op 1. Courts — Probate Court —Confirmation Sale op Agsrieved Party. Real Estate —Unsuccessful Bidder — appeal An order of sale of real properly estate was by dismissed the circuit court where it was taken an unsuccessful creditor, bidder who was not a heir, or kin of deceased and who failed to raise alter his bid after permitted sale within by statute, time as aggrieved person was not an (Act 288, chap. 1, No. 36, chap. 9, Pub. Acts §§ op op 2. Same —Confirmation Sale Probate Court —Dismissal Appeal by Circuit Court. ' Where to circuit court from order of con- firming sale of real estate was taken one not .was aggrieved person and dismissed, remand of case upon to circuit court affirmance is end matter and does not permit a reopening thereof for to make another In re Farwell’s offer or consider pending the matter of confirmance still (Act 288, chap. 1, chap. 9, §§ *2 Carr, Sharpe, Boyles, Per JJ. Appeal Wayne; (Theodore J.), Richter J. April (Docket Submitted 4, 1946. No. 51, Calendar 43,336.) Decided In the matter estate of Emma J. Farwell, petition deceased. confirm On sale of real estate to Grosner and Bnrak. Sale confirmed. H. Charles an bidder, unsuccessful reviews order Gershenson, dismissing appeal Affirmed. to circuit court. appellant. for Daniels,
Lewis Miller, Canfield, Paddock for Stone,, & trustee Company. Walter Schweikart, for Grosner and Burak. (concurring part). This is in an Reid, Wayne from an order of the circuit court .dismiss- ing H. Charles Gershenson from an probate order of the sale of real estate to Grosner Burak. controlling question appellant is: Where
made an offer for which had been author- by by ized order sold to be testamentary trustee at sale for not less than $500,000,and the offered payment sign a cash down contract a land offe'red payments for deferred of the balance, highest $365,000, which he was the claims offer, approved which offer was not court, found but another offer court to be highest accepted by offer was order Michigan Reports. person aggrieved appellant an is the court, bate appeals governing the'meaning statute § Act No. court, from the Acts Nos. 26 as amended Supp. (Comp. 16289-1 Laws Acts 1941 [36]). 1943 Rev. 27.3178 Ann. Stat. [36], question of his that the claims stranger proceedings raised for cannot be that the ‘merits in this court and the first time on a matter cannot be considered this necessary appeal. It was motion to his dismiss nature his case to state the claiming grounds explain an interest his property. stipulated
The facts are and are as follows: *3 Company, “The Detroit Trust as trustee under on Farwell, deceased, of Emma Au- the will gust county Wayne petitioned court for 14,1945, belonging license sell real estate to realty This is a downtown office estate. Detroit building, building located at stores Farwell and known street. Griswold duly hearing petition such “Notices of on were published in accordance with the in statutes such September provided, made and and on judge the matter heard Pat- was 1945, rick H. O’Brien. Testimony was then taken of free- experts real estate and after holders, others, testimony an order was entered taken, judge granted which the Detroit Trust Company property sell a license to said at price sale at a of not less than $500,000.
“By paragraph -20 of of the will Far- Emma J. of her well, the residue estate was left in trust hospitals city the establishment of certain in hearing of Detroit and at the above the beneficiaries people Wayne county, thereof, to-wit, represented, were hearing subsequently, at said attorney. prosecuting In re Fabweel’s appeared parties indi- “There to be several purchase property, in the cated said Company, Trust in trasteó, and the Detroit guide highest price itself and secure obtain- probate judge, sug- after conference with the able, gested property that offers for said be made to it envelopes, presented writing, in in sealed opened by it at a.m., 24, 1945. Company said date,
“On re- envelopes, opened ceived several all of them in such sealed presence prospective of all of said purchasers at said time. purchase “Grrosner and Burak offered to said property for the sum under a land con- $515,300 payable tract $18,000 not less than installments of cent, semi-annually, bearing all per interest at four on unpaid years, payable all five sums, within with payment a down of $155,300. “Charles H. G-ershenson, in these ceedings, purchase offered to for the said payable sum of $515,000, installments of not less monthly, bearing $3,650 than interest at four per unpaid payable on all all one-half sums, years, payment five with $150,000. a down concededly “The other bids submitted below were figures of the above two bids. deposited “Both of the above-described bidders certified checks the sum their bids.
“The trustee, after due consideration of the matter, and judge, after conference with the *4 accept decided to as the offer Grosner and Burak, n highest price prop- the obtainable for the erty. reported On 1945, trustee the sale of said Burak, Grosner and having deposit received an additional good from them as an indication of faith. “ On October H. Charles Gershenson filed objections report prop- written to the of sale of the erty claiming and Burak, Grosner bid, that his highest. and not theirs, was the Michigan Reports. before 1945, the matter came on October “On probate judge, upon O’Brien, Patrick H. Hon. Company, application trustee, Trust of Detroit the for an- its sale Grosner objections upon filed to the confirma- Burak and Gershenson. tion Charles H. objection was raised to said sale “No in'behalf county people Wayne, by of the duly attorney were hearing represented prosecuting at said Wayne county. adjourned hearing “The court until Octo- taking ber matter under advisement said and on October entered an order con- firming said sale to the said Grosner and Burak in accordance with the of sale the said De- Company, troit Trust trustee. H.
“Charles Gershenson filed an from the confifming order of the said the sale made said trustee. “Said Charles H. Gershenson is not a creditor, legatee heir kin or a deceased, or devisee under only His will. connection or said is as bidder for the estate real estate of said as above estate outlined. H.
“Said Charles Gershenson at no time raised or any altered his bid as herein set forth at state [stage?] proceedings. Company “The filed a motion to hearing dismiss the and after thereon, judge, Hon. Theodore circuit Richter, filed an opinion and entered an order thereon, dated Jan- uary dismissing appeal.” 4, said appellee Detroit Company, Trust trustee un- der the will of deceased, claims that ‘“person aggrieved” not a meaning within the Act No. 288, 1, 36, Pub. Acts 1939. although claims that his offer is $300 under yet offer of Grosner and Burak, *5 re Farweee’s 531 , In (appellant’s) higher make his interest rate of would higher offer the offer. appellee sum of- claims that the whole
Trustee paid at first in- offerer could be fered either rate of interest each date, "due and that the terest enough possible high it feasible offer make a lower rate than that mentioned obtain a loan at accepted the result that the offer offer, each yield appellee Burak the most Grosner and would money. The circuit court considered not person meaning aggrieved a of Act No. § chap. dismissed 288, appeal. requires The statute confirmation complete. court before the is deemed sale Act § chap. (Comp. Acts 1939 Laws Supp. 16289-9 1943 [24], Stat. Ann. Rev. 1940, 1 § [484]). 27.3178 right report still had
The trustee after sale to Grosner and Burak to per an offer 10 .any higher, if offer had been received days, within 8 under unless the court the statute al- § lowed shorter time. No. 288, Act (Comp. Supp. Pub. Acts 1939 16289-9 Laws [485]). Stat. 1943 [25], Ann. Rev. 27.3178 acquired rights prior Appellant no vested to con Judge, firmation. Kent Probate Schultz v. Mich. claims the and not in the estate. discretionary judge was vested with
power acceptance rejection appel- as to the lant’s offer and is not shown have abused Obviously appellant’s question discretion. proper party not raised could not be court for a final determination in that forum. Michigan Reports. *6 ap- dismissing the
The order of circuit court peal is affirmed the matter should be remanded to be circuit court to court remanded to provided, bate court if however, that shall, days probate within 8 after date of court, remand approvable by probate make an offer found court (which per greater is than the principal $515,300) offer of Grosner and Burak purchase price, as the and if such be offer shall approvable by probate found in the ab- court higher sence of a still offer, the matter of pending probate sale shall be considered as court which shall in that in the ap- case its discretion prove any highest aof sale to offerer found to appellee, Costs to offerer. remanding I C. J. concur in the case Butzbl, purposes opinion. stated in the J., concurred C. J.
Bushnell, Butzbl, agree J. with Mr. Justice Reid in af- Boyles, I firming dismissing the order of the circuit court Mr. Gershenson’s from court. How- affirming ever, when the is remanded dis- the' appeal, missal of the that is the end matter. authority entering no, any There further order, setting either here or in the circuit court, aside the confirming granting order salé Mr. Gershenson property, further time make another offer for the directing court consider the matter confirming pending. the sale still Jus- Mr. tice would, set effect, aside the order con- Reid firming reopen sale, the matter in court. granting .appeal This would be Mr. Gershenson’s granting accordingly, quite op- him relief posite «dismissing appeal. his In re Farwell’s affirming An order will be entered here dismissing- order circuit the sale appellees. of real with costs to estate, JJ., concurred with Carr, Sharpe, part took no in the decision of J., Boyles, Starr, this case. *7 BELL SERVICE MICHIGAN TELEPHONE CO. PUBLIC v. COMMISSION. Utility 1. Public Service Commissions — Rates. public utility by public A rate made for a service commis- applicable utility its sion furnishes law for the subsequently until made customers a established lawful rate is (Act 1939). 3, §6, No. commission Acts Change Utility n 2. Same — Rates. regulatory body prescribed charged Once a has a rate to be public utility subsequently the future decides that prescribed reduced, penalize shall it rate cannot utility collecting during period elapsing that rate prescribing between reducing dates of orders the rate ' (Act Telegraphs Telephones —Rates—Retroactive Order— Notice. An public order of a commission, service made on December 28th requiring telephone company gross reduce its revenues year for the calendar specified about to was end amount clearly retroactive, though application even its were limited to date of preceding notice, where such notice not of a instituting character adjustment. rate