Klinkert v. Streissguth
| Decision Date | 18 May 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23,298 |
| Citation | 193 N.W. 687,155 Minn. 388 |
| Parties | CHRISTIAN KLINKERT, BY HIS GUARDIAN, W. C. FRANK, v. KATIE STREISSGUTH |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Sibley county to recover $6,740.16. The case was tried before Tifft, J., who at the close of the testimony granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict. From an order denying his motion for a new trial plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Action to cancel deed barred by former judgment.
The rule that a judgment is res judicata and final and conclusive of the rights of the parties in and to the subject matter involved in the action, as to all elements forming a part of the cause of action, followed and applied.
L. D Barnard and Bert O. Loe, for appellant.
Mueller & Streissguth and W. C. & W. F. Odell, for respondent.
Plaintiff and defendant were next of kin and prospective heirs to the estate of Thomas Klinkert, consisting of real and personal property situated in Sibley county, the home and place of residence of Klinkert. Prior to his death and before any right or interest in or to his property became vested in either plaintiff or defendant, and on July 12, 1916, plaintiff by quitclaim deed conveyed and assigned and set over to defendant all and singular his prospective interest in and to the estate to accrue to him, both real and personal, for the consideration of $2,500; $1,500 thereof being paid at the time of the transaction, payment of the balance of $1,000 being deferred to a later date. The deed was duly recorded in the office of the register of deeds on July 14, 1916. Thereafter, on December 26, 1917, Klinkert died intestate, leaving an estate of the value of about $13,000, all of which by the intestate laws passed to plaintiff and defendant in equal shares. Defendant was appointed administratrix of the estate, and in the due course of procedure the probate court made its final decree accordingly, which was also duly recorded. Plaintiff thereafter made claim to his share of the estate, and, it being refused him by defendant, she claiming under the quitclaim deed, an action was brought by his guardian, appointed on July 13, 1918, to set aside the deed, on the ground that it was procured by fraudulent representations of defendant, and was signed and executed by plaintiff without knowledge of its contents or effect; it being alleged that plaintiff was mentally weak and could not read the document, and that he relied upon the representations of defendant as to its contents and legal effect, who had theretofore been his confidential adviser in respect to his property rights and interests.
Defendant interposed in defense the quitclaim deed, and the rights thus conveyed and assigned, and put all allegations of fraud and fraudulent representations in issue by appropriate denials. The reply was a general denial of the allegations of new matter.
There was a trial of the issues thus presented before the court and a jury, with a verdict to the effect that "plaintiff knew the contents of the instrument and what he was signing." The verdict was approved by the trial court and embodied in findings of fact, upon which judgment was ordered and entered in defendant's favor. There was an appeal from an order denying a new trial, and the order was affirmed. 145 Minn. 336, 177 N.W. 363.
Subsequent to the remand of the cause on that appeal plaintiff brought the present action in which he seeks practically the same relief as in the former action. The complaint sets out the facts which prima facie entitle plaintiff to a share in the estate, making no reference to the deed under which defendant claims. Defendant answered setting up: (1) The deed and rights thereby transferred and conveyed to her; and (2) the former...
To continue reading
Request your trial