Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

182 Mich. 707

Hinckley v. McLaughlin

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1912

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1912-12-17

Frederick P. Hinckley presented a claim against the estate of Miar McLaughlin, deceased, which was contested by Emma McLaughlin, administratrix, and disallowed by the commissioners on claims. On appeal by claimant to the circuit court, a verdict was directed for defendant. Claimant brings error.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1912-12-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1983

3 state decisions

2019121920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON REHEARING.

Moore, J.

¶2An opinion was handed down in this case some time ago. It may be found ante, 707 (139 *716N. W. 50). Later upon the request of the appellant the case was reargued. The argument and a further consideration of the record has not changed our opinion as to what should be done with the case. It is affirmed.

Brooke, Stone, and Steere, JJ., concurred with Moore, J.Ostrander, J. (dissenting). I think the writing imports consideration, and that it was for the defendant to show want of consideration. The judgment should be reversed.McAlvay, C. J., and Bird, J., concurred with Ostrander, J.

¶3ON SECOND REHEARING.

¶4Rollin H. Person, Thomas A. Lawler, and Richard Price, for the motion.

¶5Wilson & Cobb, contra.

¶6MOORE, J. An opinion was handed down in this case some time ago. It may be found ante, 707 (139 N. W. 50). Later, upon the request of the appellant, the case was reargued with the same result as before, except that it was reached by a divided court. Ante, 715 (146 N. W. 202). Later a rehearing was ordered upon briefs to be submitted.

¶7The rehearing and a further consideration of the record has not changed our opinion of the character of the paper called a note, but we are inclined to the opinion that there was sufficient evidence of a consideration to carry the case to a jury. For that reason we are constrained to say the case should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

¶8Brooke and Stone, JJ., concurred with Moore, J.

¶9*717Steere, J. I think the writing imports consideration, and that it was for the defendant to show want of consideration.

¶10The judgment should be reversed.

¶11McAlvay, C. J., and Ostrander and Bird, JJ., concurred with Steere, J. Kuhn, J., did not sit.

¶12*718L

/182/mich/707 · .json · Public domain