rebuttable or prima facie presumption in Michigan

1958The Court there quoted with approval from In re Bailey's Estate, 186 Mich 677, 692 , as follows: "`It is true that a presumption is raised that calls for an explanation, but the burden of proof to show undue influence is not thereby shifted.'" The following language from the opinion of the Court in Gillett v. Michigan United Traction Co., 205 Mich 410, 414 , was also quoted: "`It is now quite generally held by the courts that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption has no weight as evidence.

1958The Court there quoted with approval from In re Bailey’s Estate, 186 Mich 677, 692 , as follows: “ ‘It is true that a presumption is raised that calls for an explanation, but the burden of proof to show undue influence is not thereby shifted.’ ” The following language from the opinion of the Court in Gillett v. Michigan United Traction Co., 205 Mich 410, 414 , was also quoted: “ ‘It is now quite generally held by the courts that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption has no weight as evidence.

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error." Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 *283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748): Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera's Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error.” Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748); Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera’s Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error." Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 *283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748): Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera's Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error.” Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748); Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera’s Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error." Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 *283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748): Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera's Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error.” Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748); Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera’s Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error." Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 *283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748): Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera's Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error.” Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748); Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera’s Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error." Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 *283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748): Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera's Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1961As held in that case, under such circumstances, the giving of an instruction, as plaintiffs requested, would have been error.” Among decisions supporting the general proposition that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption may not be given weight as evidence, and cannot be weighed against evidence, are Madyck v. Shelley, 283 Mich 396 (1938 US AvR 134, 1 CCH Av 748); Blodgett v. Snobble, 295 Mich 374 ; In re Kanera’s Estate, 334 Mich 461 ; Hooker v. Tucker, 335 Mich 429 ; and Straith v. Straith, 355 Mich 267 .

1948To the same effect, see Allstaedt v. Ochs, 302 Mich. 232; Manufacturers National Bank v. Schirmer, 303 Mich. 598 ; Mitts v. Williams, 319 Mich. 417 .

1948To the same effect, see Allstaedt v. Ochs, 302 Mich. 232; Manufacturers National Bank v. Schirmer, 303 Mich. 598 ; Mitts v. Williams, 319 Mich. 417 .

1948To the same effect, see Allstaedt v. Ochs, 302 Mich. 232; Manufacturers National Bank v. Schirmer, 303 Mich. 598 ; Mitts v. Williams, 319 Mich. 417 .

1948“A rebuttable or prima facie presumption has no weight as evidence; it may establish a prima facie case, but, if challenged by rebutting evidence, the *200 presumption cannot be weighed against the evidence, and upon introduction of supporting evidence, the actual evidence introduced is then weighed without giving any evidential force to the presumption itself.” Hill v. Hairston (syllabus), 299 Mich. 672 .