Gollnik v. Mengel (In re Gollnik's Estate)

• Decision Date: 11 November 1910
• Citation: Gollnik v. Mengel (In re Gollnik's Estate), 112 Minn. 349, 128 N.W. 292 (Minn. 1910)
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: In re GOLLNIK'S ESTATE. GOLLNIK v. MENGEL et al.

112 Minn. 349

128 N.W. 292

In re GOLLNIK'S ESTATE.GOLLNIK

v.MENGEL et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 11, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Morrison County; M. D. Taylor, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of William R. Gollnik. From an order setting aside to Mathilda Gollnik certain property, Adelaid Mengel and others appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Under the statutes of this state, as now existing, the statutory heir may inherit, notwithstanding the death of the ancestor was caused by the willfully criminal act of the heir. D. M. Cameron, for appellants.

F. W. Lyon and Donat Trettel, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

Mathilda Gollnik was duly convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, because of the killing by her of her husband, Wm. R. Gollnik. Notwithstanding this, the probate court made an order setting aside to her, as the widow, the homestead and certain personal property. The order was affirmed by the district court, and is now here for determination.

The only question is whether the widow is barred from her statutory inheritance in her husband's property because his death was caused by her criminal act. This question received elaborate consideration in Wellner v. Eckstein, 105 Minn. 444, 117 N. W. 830. The court was divided upon it, but the case was disposed of upon the ground that the final decree of the probate court was conclusive. At the same time the views of the members of this court were fully expressed in separate opinions. Since the decision of that case Mr. Justice Elliott resigned as a member of the court, the writer taking his place, and at the risk of repeating a twice-told tale I venture to give my individual reasons for reaching the conclusion that the views expressed by Mr. Chief Justice Start in the Wellner Case are convincing and should be adopted as the basis for the decision of this case.

I realize the full force of the views of Mr. Justice Elliott, so ably expressed by him in Wellner v. Eckstein, but am convinced that one of the highest duties resting upon the judicial department of the state is to refrain from trespassing upon the domain assigned to either of the other departments. The fact that under the Constitution the responsibility of maintaining the separation in the powers of government rests ultimately with the judiciary should make a court, from whose decision there is no appeal, hesitate before assuming a power as to which there is any doubt, and resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of a co-ordinate branch of the government, unless such conclusion leads to a palpable wrong or absurdity.

We are now asked to add to a clear and unambiguous statute an exception, and, while the demand in this instance appeals to every normal person's sense of justice, it would establish a rule of construction, the limitation of which no one could foresee. This is well illustrated by the present case. The respondent was convicted of murder in the second degree, which excludes the idea of deliberation or premeditation, so that the motive for the crime could not have been the acquisition of her husband's...