Holden v. Turrell

• Citation: 86 Minn. 214
• Decision Date: 16 May 1902
• Docket Number: Nos. 12,924-(65).,s. 12,924-(65).
• Parties: G. E. HOLDEN v. ORLANDO B. TURRELL and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 214

86 Minn. 214

G. E. HOLDEN v. ORLANDO B. TURRELL and Others.¹

Nos. 12,924-(65).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 16, 1902.

Action in the district court for Redwood county, to recover from defendants Howard N. Honner and others, heirs of John S. G. Honner, deceased, $446.41 on the official bond of defendant Orlando B. Turrell as guardian of plaintiff, upon which bond decedent was a surety. From an order, Webber, J., overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant Howard N. Honner appealed. Affirmed.

Bowers & Howard and H. D. Baldwin, for appellant.

J. A. Sawyer, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the particular point being that it appeared from the face thereof that the cause, as alleged, was barred by the last sentence or provision of section 5927, G. S. 1894.

A concise statement of the main facts as set out in the complaint seems necessary. The plaintiff was a minor resident of this state on August 29, 1877. On that date one Turrell was duly appointed as his guardian by the proper probate court, and thereupon executed a bond in the usual form, with one Honner as one of the sureties. This bond was duly approved, and Turrell entered upon the discharge of his duties as such guardian. The plaintiff having become of age, Turrell filed his account in the probate court, July 27, 1896, from which it appeared that the sum of $634 was then due from him on account of plaintiff's estate, and this account was duly approved and allowed. The claim which plaintiff held against his guardian, previously contingent, then became certain and definite. Several small sums were afterwards paid to plaintiff by Turrell. February 1, 1898, he was cited to appear in the probate court, and it there found that the balance due and unpaid on account was the sum of $446.41, with interest, and plaintiff was given leave to sue upon the bond. It also appeared from the complaint that Honner died intestate in 1888, a resident of Minnesota; that proceedings were duly had in probate court in administration of his estate; and a final decree was entered in said proceedings on September 9, 1895, whereby a large amount of real estate was transferred and assigned to his heirs, these defendants other than Turrell, the value of which was largely in excess of the amount due plaintiff on the guardianship account. As will have been noticed, this was nearly one year prior to the day Turrell's account as guardian was filed and approved. This action was commenced in June, 1901, and, as before stated, the contention is that from the face of the complaint it conclusively appears that, as it was not commenced within one year from July 27, 1896, recovery is barred by what may be called the "short" statute of limitations before mentioned, which provides that "no action shall be maintained unless commenced within one year from the time the claim is allowed or established."

It is a construction of this sentence which is involved, and this is not an easy task, for difficulties are met when holding that it has no application here, as was the view of the court below, and also when attempting to construe it as urged by defendant's counsel. We confess that it is of doubtful meaning, and that it is not clear just what was intended by the use of the word "claim." Does this mean a claim which may be allowed or established in some proceeding in another court, or a claim allowed or established in another proceeding in the probate court, or has it reference solely to a claim allowed and established against the estate of the decedent whose property has passed into the hands of his heirs, devisees, or legatees, in spite of the existence of a demand which should have been paid in administration? Plaintiff's claim against Turrell was allowed and established July 27, 1896. It was conclusively adjudicated, as against him and his sureties, that he owed the plaintiff on account of his guardianship the sum of $634. As to all of the parties to that bond the amount due was res adjudicata. Jacobson v. Anderson, 72 Minn. 426, 75 N. W. 607; Cross v. White, 80 Minn. 413, 83 N. W. 393. Of course it was necessary, before a claim against Honner or his estate could be either allowed or established or enforced, to show that the bond was in proper form, and created a liability, in case of a breach, and also to show that Honner was,...