Amundson v. Hanson

• Decision Date: 10 November 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22468.,22468.
• Citation: Amundson v. Hanson, 150 Minn. 287, 185 N.W. 252 (Minn. 1921)
• Parties: AMUNDSON v. HANSON et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

150 Minn. 287

185 N.W. 252

AMUNDSON

v.HANSON et al.

No. 22468.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 10, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Chippewa County; G. E. Qvale, Judge.

Action by A. J. Amundson, as administrator of the estate of Peder Samdahl, deceased, against Anton M. Hanson and others, in which Sarah Samdahl and others intervened, and from a judgment favorable to the defendants, Sarah Samdahl appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

An administrator licensed to sell real estate at private sale cannot make a binding contract of sale. He can only report a proposed sale to the probate court, and the proposed purchaser acquires no interest in the land until the sale has been confirmed by the court and the purchaser has complied with the conditions prescribed by the court.

The probate records import verity and cannot be impeached in a collateral proceeding.

Where the court confirms a sale and directs the execution of a deed on compliance with the specified terms, but the purchaser fails to comply therewith, the court has power to revoke its order, or to amend it so as to authorize a sale to another; and where this is done, and the sale made to the other, the wife of the first purchaser acquires no marital interest in the land.

Where the court has power to make such an amendment, irregularities in the procedure cannot be taken advantage of in a collateral proceeding.

The fact that a husband pays the purchase price for land which he causes to be conveyed to another gives his wife no marital interest therein. McDowell & Fosseen, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

L. D. Barnard, of Renville, and Bert O. Loe, of Granite Falls, for respondents.

TAYLOR, C.

Peder Samdahl, a resident of Chippewa county, died intestate March 20, 1918. He had been married twice. The defendants Pauline Hanson and Julia Forest are the children of his first marriage and the other defendants are their husbands. The intervener Sarah Samdahl is his second wife and surviving widow, and the other interveners are the children of his second marriage. The present controversy is between the defendants and the intervener Sarah Samdahl, who is the sole appellant and will be referred to as the intervener hereafter.

Mr. Samdahl maintained cordial relations with the children of his first marriage, and, perhaps on this account, discord and contention arose between him and the intervener and her children. He gave substantial aid to his children, however, and made no difference between them on account of the discordant family relations.

Some time prior to April, 1915, one John Grythin died seized in fee of 240 acres of land in Chippewa county, and one I. P. Flaten was duly appointed administrator of his estate. On April 12, 1915, Flaten, as such administrator, was duly licensed by the probate court to sell the above-mentioned land at private sale. On May 3, 1915, Flaten made a written contract with Samdahl by which he agreed to sell the land, subject to outstanding farming leases, to Samdahl for $14,400, of which $900 was to be paid on delivery of the contract, and $13,500 on July 1, 1915. On May 10, 1915, Flaten, without mentioning the written contract, reported to the probate court that under the pursuant to the license issued to him he had sold the land to Peder Samdahl for the sum of $14,400-$900 in cash and $13,500 on July 1, 1915, and asked the court to confirm the sale and authorize the execution of a deed of conveyance. On the same day the probate court made an order, in the usual form, confirming the sale and authorizing the administrator to execute a deed of conveyance to the purchaser, ‘upon compliance by him with the terms of said sale.’ On the following day, May 11, 1915, Samdahl requested Flaten to arrange the matter so that the deed would be made to defendant Anton M. Hanson. On the next day, May 12, 1915, Flaten and Samdahl conferred with the judge of probate for the purpose of making the desired change. The order had been made on a printed from which contained a blank space for the name or names of the purchaser or purchasers. Samdahl's name had been written in this space. As a result of the conference, the judge of probate changed or amended the order by inserting in this space after the name of Samdahl the words, ‘as agent for Anton M. Hanson, deed to be made to Anton M. Hanson.’ A like change was made in the report of sale. As a result of these changes the records of the probate court show that the sale was made to Samdahl as agent for Hanson and that the deed was to be executed to Hanson on compliance by him with the terms of the sale. On June 30, 1915, Samdahl paid the remainder of the purchase price and Flaten executed an administrator's deed of the land to Hanson. It appears that Samdahl intended to give this land to his two daughters, Pauline Hanson and Julia Forest; that he directed Hanson to divide the land equally between them; and that Hanson subsequently conveyed an undivided one-half of it to Julia Forest. It also appears that Samdahl's object in causing the land to be conveyed to Hanson was to place it where his wife could not thwart or hinder his purpose to give it to these two daughters.

[1] The sole question presented is whether the interest which the statute gives a wife in the real estate of her husband attached to the land in controversy in favor of the intervener.

Unless either the legal or equitable title to the land vested in Peder Samdahl at some time, there was nothing to which the marital rights of the intervener could attach. There is, and could be, no claim that the legal title ever vested in him, and the question for consideration is whether the equitable title vested in him. It is claimed that the written contract with Flaten, the administrator of the Grythin estate, gave him the equitable title. Such a contract with the owner of the land might, perhaps, give an equitable title to the vendee. But Flaten was not the owner of the land, and no contract made by him at that time and in that manner could create any interest in the land or be enforced against it, at least...