Bradley v. Bradley Estate Company
| Decision Date | 19 January 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,452 - (54) |
| Citation | 106 N.W. 338,97 Minn. 130 |
| Parties | HENRY W. BRADLEY v. BRADLEY ESTATE COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal to the supreme court by Henry W. Bradley from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Simpson, J., vacating a judgment entered pursuant to the findings and order of Pond J., and granting a new trial, in an appeal by Bradley from an order of the probate court for that county. Reversed.
Vacating Account of Administrator -- Appeal.
An appeal to the district court from an order of the probate court vacating and setting aside an administrator's account presents for review in the appellate court ordinarily the propriety of the order appealed from, and not the merits of the administrator's account.
Trial of Merits.
But where, on such an appeal, the parties voluntarily litigate the merits of the administrator's account, and the court hears, adjusts, and determines the same, the parties are bound by the result to the same extent as though the matters were properly before the court.
New Trial.
An order granting a new trial will not be sustained, as one having been based upon the ground that the verdict or findings were not sustained by the evidence, and therefore a discretionary order, within the rule of Hicks v Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434), unless it affirmatively appears from the record to have been so granted. Fitger v. Guthrie, 89 Minn. 330, followed.
Cohen, Atwater & Shaw, for appellant.
J. A. Larimore and J. M. Mason, for respondent.
The facts material to the question here involved, briefly stated, are as follows: Appellant was the administrator of the estate of James A. Bradley, deceased, and as such received money and property belonging to the estate to a considerable amount. In January, 1903, he filed his account with the probate court of Hennepin county, and made application for its allowance and for a final distribution of the property to the heirs. After hearing the probate court made an order approving and allowing the account and directing the distribution of the money in his hands to the heirs entitled thereto. It seems that some arrangement was made between the heirs and the appellant as administrator, by which all objections to the account were withdrawn in consideration that the appellant would comply with certain conditions made a part of that agreement. Subsequently an application was made by the heirs to set aside the order allowing the account, based in part upon the failure of the administrator to carry out that agreement, and for a rehearing, upon which, in April, 1904, the probate court made an order vacating and setting aside the previous order, except in so far as it authorized a distribution of the property in the hands of appellant. From that order the administrator appealed to the district court, where, after a trial before Judge Pond, the court found that the account of said appellant was correct, except to the extent of $575, which was omitted therefrom by mistake, and with this correction ordered the same approved, thereby in effect reversing the order of the probate court. Subsequently a motion for a new trial was made before Judge Simpson, Judge Pond having in the meantime retired from office, which motion, after hearing, was granted, and the administrator appealed to this court.
The motion on which the order of Judge Simpson was granted was as follows:
Respondent in the above-entitled matter will move said court * * * for an order amending the conclusions of law and order for judgment herein, on the ground that they are not justified by the findings of fact, and vacating and setting aside the judgment which was heretofore * * * entered herein, and vacating and setting aside the decision and order for judgment of the court heretofore * * * made and filed herein, on which said judgment was entered, and granting a new trial in said action on the following ground, to wit: That said decision and judgment, and each of them, are not justified by the evidence and are contrary to law.
It will be observed that the relief asked for by this motion was twofold: First, for an order amending the conclusions of law, on the ground that they were not justified by the findings of fact; and, second, for an order vacating the judgment and for a new trial on the ground that the findings of fact were not sustained by the evidence.
It appears from the memorandum of the trial court -- which is proper to be considered (Johnson v. Johnson, 92 Minn. 167, 99 N.W. 803) -- that Judge Simpson granted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial