Ramstedt v. Thunem, No. 20193[288].
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
| Citation | 136 Minn. 222,161 N.W. 413 |
| Docket Number | No. 20193[288]. |
| Parties | RAMSTEDT v. THUNEM et al. |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1917 |
136 Minn. 222
161 N.W. 413
RAMSTEDT
v.
THUNEM et al.
No. 20193[288].
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Feb. 23, 1917.
Appeal from District Court, Swift County; Richard T. Daly, Judge.
Action by Ereka Ramstedt against Ole Thunem and others. Verdict for plaintiff, and from order denying their alternative motion for judgment or new trial, defendants appeal. Order affirmed.
An action by a creditor of a deceased pursuant to Gen. St. 1913, §§ 8182-8192 (Rev. Laws 1905, §§ 4510-4520), to recover of the defendants, heirs of the deceased, to the extent of the value of real property inherited by them, may be maintained though his claim was not presented to the probate court, the sole property of the deceased and that inherited being a homestead, the debt of the creditor being for labor performed by a servant and excepted by Const. art. 1, § 12, from the operation of the homestead exemption statute, no order limiting the time for filing claims having been entered by the probate court, the statute (Gen. St. 1913, § 7320 [Rev. Laws 1905, § 3727]) providing that when the only property of the deceased is a homestead no such order need be made.
The verdict is sustained by the evidence and it is not excessive.
The court instructed the jury that if the plaintiff commenced work for the deceased at an agreed price the presumption was that she continued at such price for a reasonable time while the conditions remained the same. The defendant excepted upon the ground that the agreed price would control until a new bargain was made. In view of the fact that the conditions under which the work was done were substantially unchanged and that the verdict was apparently based upon an allowance of the reasonable value for the whole period of service, it is held that there was no prejudicial error in the instruction.
[161 N.W. 413]
Fosnes & Fosnes, of Montevideo, for appellants.
John I. Davis, of Benson, for respondent.
DIBELL, C.
Action to recover of the defendants, heirs of a decedent, to the extent of the property inherited by them, the amount of a claim against the deceased. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal from the order denying their alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
[1] 1. Jens O. Thunem died April 16, 1915. His sole property was his homestead. On May 24, 1915, it was decreed by the probate court to the defendants, the heirs at law of the deceased. No order was entered limiting the time for filing claims. The statute provides that when the decedent leaves no property except a homestead such order need not be made. G. S. 1913, § 7320 (R. L. 1905, § 3727). The plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowitz v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., No. 20198[292].
...about a uniform rule of responsibility as to interstate commerce and interstate * * * bills of lading-a purpose which would be wholly [161 N.W. 413]frustrated if the proposition relied upon were upheld.’ The court also referred to St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Woodruff Mills, 105 Mis......
-
Klessig v. Lea, No. 23756.
...the hands of the heirs. So that under sections 8179 and 8182, G. S. 1913, the next of kin or heirs cannot be sued. Ramstadt v. Thunem, 136 Minn. 222, 161 N. W. 413. Such being the case, it is perfectly clear that the heirs are not liable upon any theory. It is equally true that, conceding t......
-
Klessig v. Lea, No. 23,756.
...the hands of the heirs. So that under sections 8179 and 8182, G. S. 1913, the next of kin or heirs cannot be sued. Ramstadt v. Thunem, 136 Minn. 222, 161 N. W. 413. Such being the case it is perfectly clear that the heirs are not liable upon any It is equally true that, conceding the deceas......
-
Anderson v. Johnson, No. 32448.
...in the probate court, there seems no reason for there filing such a claim or seeking its allowance. Both sides cite Ramstadt v. Thunem, 136 Minn. 222, 161 N.W. 413, where it was held that a suit was maintainable against the heirs of a decedent, to the extent of the property inherited, the s......
-
Lowitz v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., No. 20198[292].
...about a uniform rule of responsibility as to interstate commerce and interstate * * * bills of lading-a purpose which would be wholly [161 N.W. 413]frustrated if the proposition relied upon were upheld.’ The court also referred to St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Woodruff Mills, 105 Mis......
-
Klessig v. Lea, No. 23756.
...the hands of the heirs. So that under sections 8179 and 8182, G. S. 1913, the next of kin or heirs cannot be sued. Ramstadt v. Thunem, 136 Minn. 222, 161 N. W. 413. Such being the case, it is perfectly clear that the heirs are not liable upon any theory. It is equally true that, conceding t......
-
Klessig v. Lea, No. 23,756.
...the hands of the heirs. So that under sections 8179 and 8182, G. S. 1913, the next of kin or heirs cannot be sued. Ramstadt v. Thunem, 136 Minn. 222, 161 N. W. 413. Such being the case it is perfectly clear that the heirs are not liable upon any It is equally true that, conceding the deceas......
-
Anderson v. Johnson, No. 32448.
...in the probate court, there seems no reason for there filing such a claim or seeking its allowance. Both sides cite Ramstadt v. Thunem, 136 Minn. 222, 161 N.W. 413, where it was held that a suit was maintainable against the heirs of a decedent, to the extent of the property inherited, the s......