36 N.W.2d 147 | Mich. | 1949
This is an appeal by Albert W. Hooper, administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Emeline LeClair, deceased, from a judgment of the circuit court for the county of Marquette, entered July 7, 1947.
The controversy involves certain items in the first and second annual accounts of the administrator of the estate of Ellen LaFreniere, deceased, which were before this Court in ReLaFreniere's Estate,
Appellant contends that the items in the accounts covering moneys paid by the administrator for the hospital, medical and funeral expenses of the deceased are not proper charges against her estate, and also that certain items totaling $82.48 for meals and cab fares and $4 for a Mass. should not have been allowed. It is argued as to the first group that the late Peter LaFreniere, who was the administrator *564 of his wife's estate, was individually liable for these expenditures. It is argued that even of the Ellen LaFreniere estate is liable, it was the administrator's obligation under the death act to recover the amount of these expenditures against the tortfeasor, and having so recovered, there should be no allowance in his account. As to the second group it is argued that these charges were neither reasonable nor proper.
In the action brought for her unlawful death, Ellen LaFreniere's administrator, Peter D. LaFreniere, obtained a judgment in the sum of $5,500, and, as required by law, this judgment was certified to the probate court and apportioned as follows: $4,862 to her surviving husband, Peter D. LaFreniere, for his pecuniary losses, and $638 to deceased's mother, Emeline LeClair, for her pecuniary losses, they being the sole heirs at law of the deceased. There was no appeal from this apportionment. There being no unpaid claims against the estate when this judgment was satisfied, the proceeds thereof were thus distributed between the parties.
The general rule is that a husband is primarily liable for the payment of his wife's reasonable medical, hospital and funeral expenses. In re Olney's Estate,
That portion of 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 15726, subd. 7, now Act No. 288, chap. 2, § 93, Pub. Acts 1939* (Comp. Laws Supp. 1940, § 16289-2 [93,] Stat. Ann. 1943 Rev. § 27.3178 [163]), discussed in Moran v. LeBlanc's Estate, supra, was not determined to be contra to the holding in Galloway v. Estateof McPherson, *565
We see no reason to disapprove the judgment of the trial judge as to the reasonableness and propriety of the allowance of the several items included in the second group hereinabove mentioned.
It therefore follows that the several accounts of the administrator must be re-examined and any amounts included therein, which pertain to claims on items for which the deceased husband was liable, must be disallowed.
The cause is remanded to the circuit court for appropriate action and entry of a new judgment in conformity with this opinion. Costs to appellant.
SHARPE, C.J., and BOYLES, REID, NORTH, DETHMERS, BUTZEL, and CARR, JJ., concurred.