BROBST V. BROBST
155 N.W. 734 (1916)


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff payee's daughter brought suit against defendant on a promissory note for a certain sum and interest, purporting to be signed by defendant. A Michigan circuit court directed a judgment in favor of the daughter. Defendant took exception on the ground that the facts did not show that the daughter had shown title to the note to authorize a recovery by her.

FACTS: A promissory note was executed by D, payable to Almanda, who died intestate in 1913. P is the daughter of Almanda whose heirs assigned their interests in the note to P. There was no administration of Almanda1 s estate and judgment was given to P. Uncontradicted testimony was given mat mere were no debts or claims against the estate of Almanda. D appealed; P has not shown title to the note as to authorize recovery by it.

ISSUE: Does the legal title to personal effects of a deceased intestate remain in abeyance until the appointment of an administrator?

RULE OF LAW: The legal tide to personal effects of a deceased intestate remains in abeyance until the appointment of an administrator.

ANALYSIS: The payee had died intestate. The other heirs and distributees of her estate assigned in writing all their interest in the note to the daughter. At trial, there was uncontradicted testimony that there were no debts against the payee's estate. The court held that when there were no creditors, the heirs could collect an estate together and make distribution among themselves as they saw to carry into effect, without the intervention of an administrator. However, such heirs could not enforce the payments of debts owing to the estate and unpaid. The court also held that on the decease of an intestate, legal title to his personal effects was in abeyance until the appointment of an administrator and vested in him as of the time of death, and the administrator was entitled to manage the property. Except in special circumstances, such administrator was alone authorized to bring an action for the recovery of a debt due the estate. In reversing the judgment, the court held that the fact that there were probably no creditors of the payee's estate to which the note belonged did not create an exception to the rule requiring the appointment of an administrator.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment and granted a new trial.