Klessig v. Lea
| Decision Date | 11 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | 23,756 |
| Citation | 196 N.W. 655,158 Minn. 14 |
| Parties | MINNA KLESSIG v. A. O. LEA AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Waseca county against the administrator of the father of plaintiff and his heirs for specific performance of a contract with the father, as stated in the first paragraph of the opinion. The substance of the answer will be found in the second paragraph. The case was tried before Converse, J., who made the findings specified in the third paragraph, and ordered judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action. From the judgment and the intermediate orders dismissing the action, denying her motion to re-open the case, her motion to amend the findings and conclusions, granting defendants' motion to amend the fourth and ninth findings of fact, and denying her motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
What rulings on evidence are not reviewable.
1. Assignments of error not discussed are waived. Rulings relating to admission of evidence concerning facts found in favor of an appellant are not subject to review.
Equity suit to decree proceeds of sale a trust fund.
2. The complaint is held to state a cause of action in equity to trace into the hands of defendants the fund derived from the sale of plaintiff's lot by the deceased, and have the same adjudged a trust fund belonging to plaintiff.
Finding sustained.
3. The finding that none of the proceeds of the lot ever came to the estate of the deceased or into the hands of his heirs or administrator is fully sustained.
Defendants therefore not liable.
4. Such being the case, neither the heirs nor the administrator can be held liable in this action.
Claims against estate not within jurisdiction of district court.
5. Plaintiff cannot now waive the tort and recover for money had and received, for the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction of claims against the estate of decedents arising under implied or quasi contracts for the payment of money.
When finding of trial court should not be reversed.
6. In an action tried to the court, even though it appears that certain important facts were shown by evidence to which technically there might be valid objections, still, if it is clear that such facts exist and can be conclusively established were another trial had, there should not be a reversal.
Action not one for fraud and deceit.
7. The complaint and the course of trial do not justify a claim that this is an action to recover damages for fraud and deceit, in which it is not necessary to proceed in the probate court.
Moonan & Moonan, for appellant.
A. W Johnson, for respondents.
Plaintiff the daughter of Louis Klessig, deceased, brings this action against the administrator of his estate and his other heirs, alleging in substance that she worked as a farm hand for her father until she was 29 years old; that he agreed to compensate her for such services out of his estate "prior to or at the time of his death;" that pursuant thereto he, in 1912, executed a deed conveying a lot he owned in New Richland to her as grantee, and delivered the deed in escrow to the judge of probate, Charles Spillane, which deed she was to receive upon the death of the grantors therein, her father and mother; that after the death of the mother, in 1918, her father obtained the deed from Spillane without plaintiff's knowledge and sold and conveyed the lot for $4,000 to an innocent purchaser for value; that the proceeds of the sale are now in the hands of defendants and constitute a trust fund "which can be traced and identified as the proceeds of the property of said real estate and constitutes a fund in the hands of said defendants which was substituted for said real estate so sold to an innocent purchaser." The prayer for relief is that the court specifically enforce the contract, and adjudge plaintiff the owner of the property in the hands of defendants and for such other and further relief as the court sees meet.
The separate answers of the administrator and the heirs alleged that the heirs were not proper parties, and, in addition to a general denial, set forth, as a defense, a former adjudication, in that plaintiff had filed a claim for the same services against the estate of her father, which claim had been disallowed, and such disallowance affirmed on appeal to the district court and this court. In re Estate of Klessig, 153 Minn. 27, 189 N.W. 424.
The court found that pursuant to an understanding between plaintiff and her parents they executed a deed, delivering the same to Charles Spillane, conveying the lot named to plaintiff; that the deed was so delivered to Spillane without reservation, and constituted a full and complete delivery, but possession thereof was to be retained by Spillane until the death of both grantors, after which it was to be given to the plaintiff; that Spillane returned the deed to Louis Klessig after the death of the latter's wife; that thereafter on June 25, 1919, Louis Klessig conveyed the lot to August P. Nelson, which conveyance was duly recorded the same day; that the lot was reasonably worth $4,000; "that the proceeds of said sale are not now and never have been any portion of the estate of said Louis Klessig, and the same are not now and never have been in the hands of the administrator thereof;" and that defendants be dismissed with costs. Plaintiff moved for amended findings, for leave to re-open the case, and for a new trial. The motions were denied and judgment entered from which plaintiff appeals.
There are many assignments of error not discussed either in the brief or oral argument. These must be deemed waived. Others relate to rulings in the admission of evidence as to facts found in favor of appellant, and need not be considered, such, for instance, as that the deed was executed pursuant to an understanding between plaintiff and her parents, which must be inferred, if at all, from the record in the case of In re Estate of Klessig, supra. It may also be stated, in passing, that the refusal of the court to open the case after the decision was filed cannot be held abuse of judicial discretion.
The appeal, in our opinion, turns on the proposition whether the finding, above quoted, to the effect that the proceeds of the sale to Nelson never came to the hands of defendants, is sustained by the evidence.
There surely is no ground upon which to reverse the judgment in favor of the heirs. No proof whatever was offered to show that any property from Louis Klessig's estate has come to them. The inventory, and that is only in because of the record In re Estate of Klessig offered and received herein is the sole evidence as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial