above-quoted rule in Michigan

1944In discussing the question of mental incompetency, in the case of In re Ver Vaecke’s Estate, 223 Mich. 419, 425 , we said: “When a man goes to an attorney, and, without aid or suggestion, directs the provisions of his will, and furnishes specific descriptions of all the property he owns, it is a waste of time to discuss the question as to whether he was mentally competent to dispose of his property as he did.” See, also, In re Littlejohn’s Estate, supra; In re Walz’s Estate, 215 Mich. 118 ; In re Dowell’s Estate, 152 Mich. 194 ; 28 R.

1944In discussing the question of mental incompetency, in the case of In re Ver Vaecke's Estate , 223 Mich. 419 , 425 , we said: *Page 377 "When a man goes to an attorney, and, without aid or suggestion, directs the provisions of his will, and furnishes specific descriptions of all the property he owns, it is a waste of time to discuss the question as to whether he was mentally competent to dispose of his property as he did." See, also, In re Littlejohn's Estate, supra; In re Walz's Estate , 215 Mich. 118 ; In re Dowell's Estate , 152 Mich. 194 ; 28 R.C.L. p. 86, § 35.

1944In discussing the question of mental incompetency, in the case of In re Ver Vaecke’s Estate, 223 Mich. 419, 425 , we said: “When a man goes to an attorney, and, without aid or suggestion, directs the provisions of his will, and furnishes specific descriptions of all the property he owns, it is a waste of time to discuss the question as to whether he was mentally competent to dispose of his property as he did.” See, also, In re Littlejohn’s Estate, supra; In re Walz’s Estate, 215 Mich. 118 ; In re Dowell’s Estate, 152 Mich. 194 ; 28 R.

1944In discussing the question of mental incompetency, in the case of In re Ver Vaecke's Estate , 223 Mich. 419 , 425 , we said: *Page 377 "When a man goes to an attorney, and, without aid or suggestion, directs the provisions of his will, and furnishes specific descriptions of all the property he owns, it is a waste of time to discuss the question as to whether he was mentally competent to dispose of his property as he did." See, also, In re Littlejohn's Estate, supra; In re Walz's Estate , 215 Mich. 118 ; In re Dowell's Estate , 152 Mich. 194 ; 28 R.C.L. p. 86, § 35.

1944In discussing the question of mental incompetency, in the case of In re Ver Vaecke’s Estate, 223 Mich. 419, 425 , we said: “When a man goes to an attorney, and, without aid or suggestion, directs the provisions of his will, and furnishes specific descriptions of all the property he owns, it is a waste of time to discuss the question as to whether he was mentally competent to dispose of his property as he did.” See, also, In re Littlejohn’s Estate, supra; In re Walz’s Estate, 215 Mich. 118 ; In re Dowell’s Estate, 152 Mich. 194 ; 28 R.

1944In discussing the question of mental incompetency, in the case of In re Ver Vaecke's Estate , 223 Mich. 419 , 425 , we said: *Page 377 "When a man goes to an attorney, and, without aid or suggestion, directs the provisions of his will, and furnishes specific descriptions of all the property he owns, it is a waste of time to discuss the question as to whether he was mentally competent to dispose of his property as he did." See, also, In re Littlejohn's Estate, supra; In re Walz's Estate , 215 Mich. 118 ; In re Dowell's Estate , 152 Mich. 194 ; 28 R.C.L. p. 86, § 35.

1984Thus, we find that the court ered in finding Henderson, supra, inapplicable on this ground.

1976After quoting State Farm v Allen, supra, and recognizing that the general rule in Michigan is that attorneys' fees in the "present" action are not recoverable but that when the plaintiff has incurred attorney fees in defending previous legal proceedings, recovery may be had therefor, the Dassance court said as follows: "The above-quoted rule is directly applicable to the *264 case at bar.

1976After quoting State Farm v Allen, supra, and recognizing that the general rule in Michigan is that attorneys’ fees in the "present” action are not recoverable but that when the plaintiff has incurred attorney fees in defending previous legal proceedings, recovery may be had therefor, the Dassance court said as follows: "The above-quoted rule is directly applicable to the case at bar.

1975Similarly, see Restatement, Torts, § 914, referred to as supporting authority in Oppenhuizen v Wennersten, supra [ 2 Mich App 288 ; 139 NW2d 765 (1966)].” The above-quoted rule is directly applicable to the case at bar.

1975Similarly, see Restatement, Torts, § 914, referred to as supporting authority in Oppenhuizen v Wennersten, supra [ 2 Mich App 288 ; 139 NW2d 765 (1966)].” The above-quoted rule is directly applicable to the case at bar.

1969The above-quoted instruction, taken from 2 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure, § 906, no. 276, while drawn from People v. Schaner (1942), 302 Mich 6 , leaves much to be desired, in that it ignores the use of alibi as raising a reasonable doubt.

1969On the other hand, the Court in People v. Durkee (1963), 369 Mich 618 , faced the same issue and quoted with approval foreign precedent 2 that “where a witness merely states that he does not remember he cannot be impeached by the showing of former statements regarding the facts he claims not to have remembered.” In the subsequent case of Hill v. Harbor Steel & Supply Corporation (1965), 374 *604 Mich 194, 215, the Durhee Case was said to stand for the above-quoted principle.

1969Actually, the Court in Durhee ■■ reversed on another, although related, ground: failure to instruct the jury that the previous inconsistent statement could not be considered as ’ substantive evidence ( 369 Mich at 627 ).

1964Washita Valley Grain Co. v. McElroy (Okla), 262 P2d 133 , opinion of patrolman that plaintiff was not negligent; Wade v. Wolf (Okla), 312 P2d 493 , testimony of patrolman that he found no improper action on part of defendant; and Maben v. Lee (Okla), 260 P2d 1064, 1065 , opinion of patrolman that collision was caused by defendant.” Kelso v. Independent Tank Co. (Okla), 348 P2d 855, 857 .

1964Washita Valley Grain Co. v. McElroy (Okla), 262 P2d 133 , opinion of patrolman that plaintiff was not negligent; Wade v. Wolf (Okla), 312 P2d 493 , testimony of patrolman that he found no improper action on part of defendant; and Maben v. Lee (Okla), 260 P2d 1064, 1065 , opinion of patrolman that collision was caused by defendant." Kelso v. Independent Tank Co. (Okla), 348 P2d 855, 857 .

1964Washita Valley Grain Co. v. McElroy (Okla), 262 P2d 133 , opinion of patrolman that plaintiff was not negligent; Wade v. Wolf (Okla), 312 P2d 493 , testimony of patrolman that he found no improper action on part of defendant; and Maben v. Lee (Okla), 260 P2d 1064, 1065 , opinion of patrolman that collision was caused by defendant.” Kelso v. Independent Tank Co. (Okla), 348 P2d 855, 857 .

1964Washita Valley Grain Co. v. McElroy (Okla), 262 P2d 133 , opinion of patrolman that plaintiff was not negligent; Wade v. Wolf (Okla), 312 P2d 493 , testimony of patrolman that he found no improper action on part of defendant; and Maben v. Lee (Okla), 260 P2d 1064, 1065 , opinion of patrolman that collision was caused by defendant." Kelso v. Independent Tank Co. (Okla), 348 P2d 855, 857 .

1964Washita Valley Grain Co. v. McElroy (Okla), 262 P2d 133 , opinion of patrolman that plaintiff was not negligent; Wade v. Wolf (Okla), 312 P2d 493 , testimony of patrolman that he found no improper action on part of defendant; and Maben v. Lee (Okla), 260 P2d 1064, 1065 , opinion of patrolman that collision was caused by defendant.” Kelso v. Independent Tank Co. (Okla), 348 P2d 855, 857 .

1964Washita Valley Grain Co. v. McElroy (Okla), 262 P2d 133 , opinion of patrolman that plaintiff was not negligent; Wade v. Wolf (Okla), 312 P2d 493 , testimony of patrolman that he found no improper action on part of defendant; and Maben v. Lee (Okla), 260 P2d 1064, 1065 , opinion of patrolman that collision was caused by defendant." Kelso v. Independent Tank Co. (Okla), 348 P2d 855, 857 .

1964Washita Valley Grain Co. v. McElroy (Okla), 262 P2d 133 , opinion of patrolman that plaintiff was not negligent; Wade v. Wolf (Okla), 312 P2d 493 , testimony of patrolman that he found no improper action on part of defendant; and Maben v. Lee (Okla), 260 P2d 1064, 1065 , opinion of patrolman that collision was caused by defendant.” Kelso v. Independent Tank Co. (Okla), 348 P2d 855, 857 .

1964Washita Valley Grain Co. v. McElroy (Okla), 262 P2d 133 , opinion of patrolman that plaintiff was not negligent; Wade v. Wolf (Okla), 312 P2d 493 , testimony of patrolman that he found no improper action on part of defendant; and Maben v. Lee (Okla), 260 P2d 1064, 1065 , opinion of patrolman that collision was caused by defendant." Kelso v. Independent Tank Co. (Okla), 348 P2d 855, 857 .

1933Laws 1929, •§ 13417 (5), as a written promise to pay commission (Claxton v. Margolis, 248 Mich. 199 ), if the agreement was executed for and upon authority of defendant corporation.