M'Keen v. Waldron

• Decision Date: 23 January 1879
• Citation: 25 Minn. 466
• Parties: PRISCILLA McKEEN, Guardian, <I>vs.</I> SYLVESTER WALDRON and others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 466

25 Minn. 466

PRISCILLA McKEEN, Guardian, vs. SYLVESTER WALDRON and others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 23, 1879.

This action was brought in the district court for Hennepin county, by the plaintiff as guardian of the persons and estate of the minor children of Delos T. Jones, deceased, against the defendant Waldron as principal, and the defendant Kruckeberg as surety, and the defendants Alvira Bidwell and others as heirs at law and legatees of M. D. Bidwell, deceased, also a surety, in a bond given by defendant Waldron, as administrator of Delos T. Jones.

A jury was waived, and the action tried before Young, J., who found that Waldron was the administrator of Delos T. Jones, duly appointed by the probate court of Hennepin county, and that the defendant Kruckeberg and one M. D. Bidwell were the sureties on his bond as administrator, which was duly approved and filed on December 5, 1872. Waldron's accounts as administrator were finally settled and adjusted by the probate court on May 29, 1877, and there was found to be a balance in his hands of $1,419.65, to be distributed to the next of kin, and by an order made on that day, the probate court directed that such amount be distributed, in equal shares, between Edwin Delos Jones and Agnes Ellen Jones, who were declared to be the next of kin and only heirs-at-law of the intestate. Waldron has never paid over any part of the amount, though the plaintiff, who is the duly appointed guardian of the distributees, (who are minors,) has made due demand.

Prior to the settlement of Waldron's accounts, Bidwell, the surety on his bond, died, and his estate was duly administered in the probate court of Hennepin county; commissioners were duly appointed to receive and examine claims against his estate, who performed their duty in all respects, and made due report to the probate court; and after payment of the debts proved against the estate, the property remaining was, by order of distribution made by the probate court, directed to be paid, and was paid, to the defendants Alvira Bidwell and others, heirs-at-law and legatees of M. D. Bidwell. No application for the allowance of any claim on the bond in question was ever made to the commissioners of Bidwell's estate.

As a conclusion of law, the court found that the heirs-at-law of M. D. Bidwell to whom had been distributed the estate of Bidwell before the plaintiff's claim became absolute, and who are defendants herein, were liable to the plaintiff pro rata, to the extent of the estate so by them respectively received. A new trial was refused, and the heirs of Bidwell appealed.

Wilson & Lawrence, for appellants.

Woods & Babcock, Webster & Flannigan, and A. C. Smith, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

This case, as does almost every case coming here upon the same statute, shows the urgent need for a thorough revision of the statutes regulating the settlement of the estates of deceased persons. Those interested in such estates are frequently widows and infants, incapable of adequately protecting their interests. The administration of the estates is mainly controlled by the probate courts, the judges of which are oftentimes men not learned in the law. The statutes on the subject should be as simple and clear as language can make them. On the contrary, they are the most complicated, obscure and confusing statutes in the statute book.

The question in the case is, can the obligee in a penal bond, executed by a person since deceased, and whose estate has been fully administered and distributed before a breach in the condition of the bond, and the claim upon which bond was not presented for proof either to the probate court or to the commissioners appointed to audit claims against the estate of the deceased obligor, maintain an action on the bond, after breach of its condition, against the heirs, devisees, next of kin or legatees to whom the estate has been distributed?

Gen. St. c. 53, which treats of the proof and payment of debts in the course of administration, seems to contemplate two classes of claims, one, of those for which the liability is absolute and fixed, including those not yet due; the other, of those the liability for which depends upon some future contingent event. The latter are designated "contingent claims," and in this class falls a penal bond the condition of which has not been broken. The first forty-two sections of the chapter are devoted to the establishment and payment of claims of the first class, and the distribution of the estate after they are paid. As to those, section 14 provides: "Every person having a claim against a deceased person, proper to be allowed by the commissioners, who shall not, after the publication of notice as required herein, exhibit his claim to the commissioners within the time limited by the court for that purpose, shall be forever barred from recovering such demand, or from setting off the same in any action whatever." Section 49 saves such a claim from the bar if the appointment of commissioners is omitted. Except in case of such omission, no action on a claim proper to be allowed by the commissioners can be maintained against any one, executor, administrator, heir, next of kin, devisee or legatee, unless it has been presented to and allowed by the commissioners. The actions regulated in Gen. St. c...