St. Paul Trust Co. v. Kittson (In re Kittson's Estate)

• Decision Date: 06 December 1901
• Parties: In re KITTSON'S ESTATE. ST. PAUL TRUST CO. v. KITTSON et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

84 Minn. 493

87 N.W. 1012

In re KITTSON'S ESTATE.ST. PAUL TRUST CO.

v.KITTSON et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 6, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Chas E. Otis, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of Norman W. Kittson. On filing of the account of the St. Paul Trust Company, executor, Hercules L. Kittson and others filed objections. From an order of the probate court the executor appealed, and from an order of the district court dismissing the appeal it again appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An appeal may be taken from a part of a final order or judgment is the part whereby the appellant is aggrieved is so far distinct and independent that it may be adjudicated on appeal without bringing up for review the entire order or judgment.

2. So much of an order of a probate court settling and allowing the account of an executor or administrator as adjudicates his claim for services may be appealed from without bringing up the entire order for review. Capehart v. Logan, 20 Minn. 442 (Gil. 395), distinguished. Harvey Officer and F. B. Kellogg, for appellant.

James D. Armstrong, Durment & Moore, and D. Murphy, for respondents.

START, C. J.

The St. Paul Trust Company, as executor of the will of Norman W. Kittson, deceased, hereafter designated as the ‘executor,’ filed its account with the probate court of the county of Ramsey. The account consisted of some 22 pages of printed matter, showing in detail the receipt and disbursement of over a half of a million of dollars. The executor, in its account, charged the estate from time to time for its services and commissions, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $18,250. The respondents herein appeared in the probate court, and filed objections to the charges for services, and also specific objections to certain other items of the account, amounting in the aggregate to several thousand dollars. Upon a hearing of the matter the probate court made its order allowing without any change all of the items of the account as to the receipts and disbursements by the executor, but reducing its claim for services to $12,000, whereby $6,250 thereof was disallowed, and the balance of the claim for services allowed. The executor appealed to the district court from all of that part of the order whereby its charges for services was thereby fixed at the sum of $12,000 for all of its services rendered during the period covered by its account, and from each and every part of the order so far as it disallowed or surcharged its account in the sum of $6,250. The return from the probate court having been filed in the district court, the respondents made a motion therein to dismiss the appeal, and the district court made its order granting the motion, from which the executor appealed to this court.

An appeal may be taken from a part of a final order or judgment if the part whereby the appellant is aggrieved is so far distinct and independent that it may be adjudicated on appeal without bringing up for review the entire order or judgment. Hall v. McCormick, 31 Minn. 280, 17 N. W. 620. The sole question presented by the record on this appeal is whether an order settling and allowing the account of an executor or administrator, in so far as it adjudicates his claim for services, is within this rule. The trial court, on the authority of the case of Capehart v. Logan, 20 Minn. 442 (Gil. 395), which is also here relied upon by respondents, held that such part of the order was not within the rule stated. That case is distinguishable from the one we are considering. In the case cited a creditor presented to commissioners appointed to adjust claims against the estate...