Gage v. Stimson
| Decision Date | 11 June 1879 |
| Citation | 1 N.W. 806,26 Minn. 64 |
| Parties | Charles E. Gage, Executor, v. H. A. Stimson |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Young, J., presiding, discharging garnishees.
Order affirmed.
Woods & Babcock, for appellant.
Shaw & Levi, for respondent.
This plaintiff, in an action against Rufus J. Baldwin, garnished the administrators, with the will annexed, of the estate of Levi Butler, deceased, and the disclosure showed that the report filed by the commissioners to audit claims against said estate allowed a claim in favor of Baldwin. Pending the proceedings in garnishment, Stimson served notice on the administrators that he was the owner of the claim so allowed and he was thereupon joined in the proceedings as claimant of the debt disclosed. A full disclosure made it appear that the claim presented to the commissioners belonged to Stimson that he had placed the same in the hands of Baldwin, as his agent, only for collection, and that Baldwin presented it before the commissioners as a claim due to himself, and that it was so allowed by the commissioners. The court below sustained Stimson's claim, and discharged the proceedings.
The proof of Stimson's title was objected to by plaintiff as incompetent and immaterial, and insufficient in law to establish his claim. Plaintiff's proposition is that the allowance of the claim by the commissioners is in effect a judgment, and conclusive upon all parties interested in the estate as to all matters involved in the determination of the claim among which is the fact that the claim was due to Baldwin, in whose favor it was allowed. State v. Ramsey County Probate Court, 25 Minn. 22, is cited in support of this. But that case holds only that such an award is final and conclusive upon all parties interested in the estate, "in all subsequent proceedings for its administration." This is not a proceeding in administering the estate of Butler.
While a judgment, as between the parties to it, is conclusive as to the title to the thing or debt determined by it, it is not so as between third persons, nor as between one of the parties and a third person. Thus, in case of a debt, a judgment upon it in favor of A against B is conclusive between them that A is the owner of the debt. But C might sue B for the debt, and the judgment would not prove that it belonged to A. Or if A...
To continue reading
Request your trial