Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Menage

• Decision Date: 16 December 1896
• Parties: MINNEAPOLIS TRUST CO. v MENAGE ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

66 Minn. 447

69 N.W. 224

MINNEAPOLIS TRUST CO.vMENAGE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 16, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

No appeal lies from an order denying a motion to strike out and dismiss objections filed to the allowance of the account of a trustee.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Robert D. Russell, Judge.

Action by the Minneapolis Trust Company, receiver of the Northwestern Guaranty Loan Company, against Louis F. Menage and others. From an order refusing to strike objections to the account of the trustee from the files, plaintiff appeals. Dismissed.

W. E. Dodge, for appellant.

F. B. Hart and Rea, Hubachek & Healy, for respondents.

START, C. J.

The Minneapolis Trust Company on the 5th day of December, 1894, was, by the judgment of the district court of Hennepin county, appointed a trustee to take, hold, and dispose of, under the direction of the court, certain collateral securities, and distribute the proceeds thereof among creditors. It accepted the trust, sold and disposed of a portion of the property under the direction and approval of the court, and received and disbursed certain moneys in the execution of the trust. On January 10, 1896, pursuant to an order of the court, the Minneapolis Trust Company, as such trustee, filed its report and account of receipts and disbursements. On January 13, 1896, an order was issued directing the defendants and all other interested persons to appear before the court on January 25, 1896, and show cause why the account, as filed, should not be allowed. This order was duly served, and the defendant the La Salle National Bank, on the return day thereof, filed its objections to the report and the allowance of the account. The defendant, by its answer to the order to show cause, objected to the allowance of several specific items of disbursements in the account, and also sought to surcharge the account by charging the trustee with the face value of certain bonds it had sold under the direction and approval of the court, which approval was obtained, as the defendant alleged, by concealing material facts and imposing on the court. Thereupon the trustee moved the court to strike the objections from the files of the court, and to dismiss the same, and to allow the account. The trustee appeals from an order denying the motion. The defendant here urges that the order is not appealable. The trustee claims that the order, in effect, vacated the former order of the court, directing...