Ramstedt v. Thunem

Decision Date23 February 1917
Docket NumberNo. 20193[288].,20193[288].
Citation136 Minn. 222,161 N.W. 413
PartiesRAMSTEDT v. THUNEM et al.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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.

Syllabus by the Court

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. 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 debt was for labor and services within Const. art. 1, § 12, which provides that property exempted by the statute shall be subject to seizure and sale for such a debt. The right of a creditor to recover of heirs to the extent of the value of real property inherited by them is fixed by G. S. 1913, §§ 8182-8192 (R. L. 1905, §§ 4510-4520). A creditor whose claim is provable and who does not present it for allowance in the probate court is barred of his right to recover of the heirs. Hill v. Nichols, 47 Minn. 382, 50 N. W. 367;Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 63 N. W. 1069. These cases do not involve a situation where no order limiting the time for the presentment of claims was made, where the only property, a homestead, was decreed to the heirs, and where the plaintiff's debt was excepted from the operation of the homestead statute. The question is whether a plaintiff having such a debt, and the sole property of the deceased being a homestead, it having been decreed to the heirs by the probate court and no order having been made limiting the time for presenting claims, can maintain an action against the heirs. We hold that he can. The question is one of statutory construction. We do not hold that a creditor may not present his excepted claim to the probate court and that the probate court may not subject the homestead to it. So far as we have noted them the cases hold either directly or by implication that the homestead may be reached...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT