State ex rel. Benz v. Probate Court
| Decision Date | 26 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 19,603-(46).<SMALL><SUP>2</SUP></SMALL>,s. 19,603-(46).<SMALL><SUP>2</SUP></SMALL> |
| Citation | 133 Minn. 124 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. H. L. BENZ and Others v. PROBATE COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY and Another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
John A. Dahl, the judge thereof, to review the proceedings in the probate court in reference to the petition of Mae E. Rogers, widow of said decedent, directing the executors to pay her the sum of $4,945.34, with interest. The matter was heard before Hale, J., who quashed the writ. From the order quashing the writ, the executors and trustees appealed. Respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellants were not aggrieved parties within the statute was denied. Affirmed on appeal.
James E. O'Brien and Frank R. Hubachek, for appellants.
Brooks & Jamison, A. B. Jackson and Charles J. Tryon, for respondent.
On January 21, 1916, the following opinion was filed:
Appeal by plaintiffs, executors and trustees under the will of John E. Rogers, deceased, from an order of the district court of Hennepin county quashing a writ of certiorari directed to the probate court to review its order directing the plaintiffs, as executors, to pay respondent $5,000 out of the funds of the estate. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellants are not "aggrieved parties" within G. S. 1913, § 7491.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied on the authority of Burmeister v. Gust, 117 Minn. 247, 135 N. W. 980; Rong v. Haller, 106 Minn. 454, 119 N. W. 405, and the authorities referred to in the opinions in those cases.
1. Reported in 155 N. W. 906, 158 N. W. 234.
2. April, 1916, term calendar.
On May 26, 1916, the following opinion was filed:
SCHALLER, J.
John E. Rogers, a resident of Hennepin county, Minnesota, died testate January 22, 1912. His wife Mae E. Rogers, four brothers and one sister who survived him, are his legatees and devisees.
In January, 1896, Rogers insured his life for the sum of $5,000, naming his wife, Mae E. Rogers, as beneficiary. The policy which was in force at the time of his death, had been assigned by Rogers and his wife as collateral security to a loan, and at the date of his death it was held by the Scandinavian American National Bank as collateral to Rogers' note for $16,000. This note bore date July 22, 1911, and fell due January 26, 1912, four days after Rogers' death, interest having been paid in advance. Rogers, at the date of his death, had a deposit in the bank amounting to $8,419.76, which amount was on January 27, 1912, appropriated by the bank in part payment of his note. About the twenty-ninth of February, 1912, proof of loss having been made, a draft was sent by the insurance company to the bank, payable to the bank and to Mae E. Rogers, the beneficiary. In some way not definitely disclosed, but probably at the request of the executors or their attorney, the widow indorsed this draft, the proceeds whereof, $4,945.34, were applied by the bank as a payment on the note. Thereafter and on March 16, 1912, the executors paid to the bank out of the funds of the estate $2,681.60, the balance due on the note with interest from its due date.
On the same day, March 16, 1912, the Scandinavian American National Bank filed a verified claim against the estate in the usual form for the sum of $16,000, the face of the note, alleging that there was due and owing to claimant at the time of Rogers' death from his estate the sum of $16,000, and that no offsets existed against such indebtedness except as stated in the account. The copy of the note attached to the claim and affidavits showed no payments. The claim was duly allowed by the probate court on September 24, 1912. No appeal was taken from such allowance and the bank still holds the judgment.
The will of John E. Rogers was admitted to probate and the executors qualified thereunder. The business of the testator was continued by them pursuant to the provisions of the will.
The widow filed no claim against the estate for the $4,945.34 within the time limited by the probate court for filing claims. About the twenty-fifth of May, 1914, she filed a petition in the probate court, setting up, among other things, the facts above stated, and prayed for an order and decree that she had a valid and subsisting claim against the estate for the amount received by the bank, with interest from the twenty-ninth of February, 1912, and that the executors be directed to pay to her the amount by her paid to the bank, with interest.
Upon this petition a citation was issued to the executors and to the Scandinavian American National Bank, requiring them to...
To continue reading
Request your trial