Estate Frank Jennrich Jerry R. Ryan v. Ida

• Decision Date: 17 April 1936
• Docket Number: 30,849
• Citation: 266 N.W. 461,197 Minn. 162
• Parties: In Re Estate Of Frank Jennrich; Jerry R. Ryan v. Ida Schmidt And Others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

266 N.W. 461

197 Minn. 162

In Re Estate Of Frank Jennrich; Jerry R. Ryan v. Ida Schmidt And Others.

No. 30,849

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 17, 1936

Jerry R. Ryan, as administrator of the estate of Minnie Ryan, deceased daughter of Frank Jennrich, appealed from a judgment of the district court for Ramsey county, Kenneth G. Brill, Judge, affirming a decree of distribution of the probate court, Albin S. Pearson, Judge, in the estate of Frank Jennrich. Affirmed.

Cite for Rehearing is 267 N.W. 143

Kennedy & Kennedy, for appellant.

Henry Marks, for respondents.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Holt

Will -- construction -- vested interests -- postponement of time of payment.

1. The intention of testator to postpone the vesting of legacies of his nine children in his residuary estate until the time of the entry of the decree of distribution appears so plainly from the will, taken as a whole, that no rules of construction can be allowed to frustrate such intention.

Will -- construction -- vested interests -- postponement of time of payment.

2. The record does not furnish any ground upon which to hold that the share of a daughter, who died after the final account of the executor was filed but before a hearing thereon and the rendition of the final decree, vested because of dilatory tactics of the executor.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: No Majority Opinion Appears at 267 N.W. 143 UPON APPLICATION FOR REARGUMENT.]

On May 8, 1936, the following opinion was filed:

PER CURIAM.

In the opinion it was said of the agreement signed by the legatees in November, 1934: "That agreement was not a division of the residuary estate. It was made to facilitate the settlement of the estate and the entry of the final decree of distribution." It was not intended by the words quoted to express an opinion as to the binding effect of the agreement upon the signers; but to show that the district court as well as the probate court could view the purpose of the agreement to be to speed a final distribution in accord with the direction of the will.

The petition for a rehearing is denied.