Fields v. Mundy's Estate
| Decision Date | 06 April 1900 |
| Citation | 82 N.W. 343,106 Wis. 383 |
| Parties | FIELDS v. MUNDY'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
1. The full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution, as regards the effect of judicial proceedings of one state in the courts of another, does not militate against the effect of a statute of limitations of this state, as regards the remedy to enforce claims, whether based on judgments in the courts of another state or not.
2. A judgment allowing a claim against a deceased person in proceedings to settle his estate in a court of Minnesota, is affected the same as any other claim against the estate of such person in process of administration in a county court of this state, by section 3844, Rev. St., barring all claims against the estate if not filed within the time limited therefor under section 3840, Id.
3. Section 3840, Rev. St., providing for a time limit to be fixed by the court for the filing of claims against the estate of a deceased person, and notice thereof to be given to all persons interested, if complied with by the fixing of such time and the giving of such notice, furnishes the exclusive remedy for the collection of such claims; and if they be not filed within the time so limited they will be barred by section 3844. Such sections admit of no exceptions on account of nonresidence of a claimant or the fact that his claim may have been allowed against the estate of the same person in a foreign jurisdiction.
Appeal from circuit court, Douglas county; A. J. Vinje, Judge.
In the matter of the claim of Myron W. Fields against the estate of Edwin V. Mundy, deceased. From a judgment rejecting the claim, affirmed by the circuit court, claimant appeals. Affirmed.
The last will and testament of Edwin V. Mundy was duly admitted to probate in the county court of Douglas county, Wis., June 23, 1891, and in the probate court of St. Louis county, Minn., October 22, 1891. Thomas A. E. Weadock, the executor named in the will, was confirmed as such and letters testamentary issued to him by each of said courts. Such proceedings were duly had in the settlement of the estate in the Minnesota court that a claim was there duly allowed May 23, 1892, in favor of Myron W. Fields, the appellant, a resident of such state, for $1,790. All the assets within the jurisdiction of such court were exhausted without realizing anything to pay appellant's claim. Such proceedings were duly had in the Douglas county court that the time for filing claims against the estate there was fixed by an order of such court and due notice thereof given, according to the laws of this state, to all persons interested. After the time thus limited Mr. Fields filed his claim against the estate in such court, basing the same on the allowance thereof in the Minnesota court. On the hearing on such claim it was rejected upon the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Section 3844, Rev. St. The claimant appealed to the circuit court and on the trial there produced and introduced in evidence the proceedings of the Minnesota court allowing the claim. The circuit court affirmed the order of the Douglas county court, and the claimant appealed from the judgment thereupon rendered.
Reed & Reed, for appellant.
Thomas A. E. Weadock, for respondent.
MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).
The vital question on this appeal is not whether the allowance of the appellant's claim in the Minnesota court was res adjudicata of its validity in the county court of Douglas county, under the full faith and crèdit clause of the federal constitution, as to the effect of the judicial proceedings of one state in the courts of another. Considerable learning on that subject is displayed in the brief of counsel for appellant, but we fail to see how it applies to this case. The sole question demanding consideration here is, did the allowance of the claim in the Minnesota court give to it any different status as regards the statute of limitations (section 3844, Rev. St.) upon the life of claims against estates of deceased persons in this state, than that of any other claim?
Such section provides that, “every person having a claim against a deceased person, proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dow v. Lillie
... ... 512 L. C. DOW as Administrator, and Josephine Lillie, as Administratrix, of the Estate of Eulalie Lillie, Deceased, Karl W. Kendall, and First National Bank of Marion, Iowa a ... Hartford ... F. Ins. Co. 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 553, 90 C. C. A. 593, 164 F ... 817; Fields v. Mundy, 106 Wis. 383, 80 Am. St. Rep. 39, 82 ... N.W. 343 ... Noble, ... ...
-
Baumgarten's Estate, In re
...except as such period may lawfully be extended. Estate of Batz., 1930, 202 Wis. 636, 638, 233 N.W. 555. See also Fields v. Estate of Mundy, 1900, 106 Wis. 383, 386, 82 N.W. 343. Sec. 313.03(1), referred to in sec. 313.08, does permit extensions of time within which claims may be filed up to......
-
Lecic's Estate, Matter of, 80-1489
...of Fessler, 100 Wis.2d 437, 450-451, 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981); Davis v. Davis, 137 Wis. 640, 119 N.W. 334 (1909); Fields v. Estate of Mundy, 106 Wis. 383, 82 N.W. 343 (1900); 2 MacDonald, Wisconsin Probate Law, sec. 9.31 Lane and Schweiger attempt to avoid the bar of secs. 859.01 and 859.05 by......
-
O'Brien v. Hanreddy (In re Hanreddy's Estate)
...by the law of the place of administration and filing. Davis v. Davis, 137 Wis. 640, 647, 119 N. W. 334;Fields v. Estate of Mundy, 106 Wis. 383, 386, 82 N. W. 343, 80 Am. St. Rep. 39;Winter v. Winter, 101 Wis. 494, 498, 77 N. W. 883. And, again, a judgment against an administrator in one jur......