State ex rel. Union National Bank of Grand Forks v. Probate Court of Ramsey County
| Decision Date | 14 February 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,453 - (201) |
| Citation | 115 N.W. 173,103 Minn. 325 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. UNION NATIONAL BANK OF GRAND FORKS v. PROBATE COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Writ of certiorari from the district court for Ramsey county to the probate court of that county upon the relation of the Union National Bank of Grand Forks. The facts are stated in the opinion. From an order, Hallam, J., quashing the writ relator appealed. Affirmed.
Probate Court -- Jurisdiction.
The probate court is not endowed by the constitution (section 7 art. 6) with the general equity powers of courts of general jurisdiction.
Probate Court.
Whether the legislature has the constitutional power to provide that the probate court may, as an incident to the administration of estates, determine and discharge equitable mortgages and liens, is not decided. Such duties have not been imposed, and in the absence of legislative enactment that court has no jurisdiction.
Clapp & MacCartney, for appellant.
Stringer & Seymour, for respondent.
Walter L. Chapin and J. P. Kyle, for creditors of the estate, by consent filed briefs.
November 14, 1903, E. M. Prouty discounted to the relator a note for $3,000, signed by George W. Downing, payable to the order of E.M. Prouty & Co., and at the same time assigned to relator a chattel mortgage executed by Downing to E.M. Prouty & Co. to secure payment of the note, purporting to mortgage property described as follows: "The following described property now in my possession, owned by me, and free from incumbrance, to wit, one hundred fifty (150) head of mixed cattle, branded P C on the left side, and being in Williams county, North Dakota, near Buford." At the time of presenting the note and mortgage Mr. Prouty guaranteed its payment, and represented that Downing was the owner of the cattle and that they were located in Williams county, North Dakota. The note was not paid at maturity, and was renewed from time to time; the last renewal being November 14, 1905. Downing did not in fact own the cattle described in the mortgage; but Prouty owned several hundred head of cattle bearing the same brand and located in North Dakota and Montana.
Mr. Prouty died on March 10, 1906, and his son, Emery M. Prouty, was duly appointed administrator by the probate court of Ramsey county. The relator then made proof of his claim against the estate, based upon Mr. Prouty's guarantee of the promissory note. The claim was allowed. Certain cattle in Montana belonging to Mr. Prouty having been sold, and the proceeds having been turned over to the administrator, the relator petitioned the probate court for an order directing the administrator to pay to it the amount of its claim out of that fund, upon the theory that it had a preferred lien thereon by virtue of the mortgage. The probate court declined to hear the matter upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction, and a writ of certiorari was then sued out of the district court to review that question. The district court also determined that the probate court had no jurisdiction, and the matter was brought to this court upon appeal.
The petition, after setting forth the execution of the note and mortgage, as above stated, alleges, upon information and belief, that the said George W. Downing did not own the cattle described in the mortgage, but that, on the contrary, they were the property of E. M. Prouty; that Prouty procured the original note and mortgage, and renewals thereof, to be made out in the name of Downing for the purpose of discounting the same at the bank; that the relator was ignorant of the true situation, accepted the notes and mortgages for what they purported to be, and that the mortgage was duly recorded; that Prouty owned a large number of cattle in excess of the one hundred fifty head mentioned in the mortgage, and that either before or after the execution of the last-mentioned mortgage, viz., November 14, 1905, more than one hundred fifty cattle bearing the brand P C were removed from North Dakota to Montana, where they were located at the death of Prouty; that there was no other lien or claim upon them; that the relator was not informed until after Prouty's death that the cattle purporting to be conveyed in the mortgage were not located in North Dakota, but were in Montana, "and thereupon relator elected to take all the cattle conveyed by its said mortgage, one hundred fifty of the cattle bearing said brand and then situated in said state of Montana, and took steps to enforce its mortgage lien upon said cattle." The petition also alleges that the Montana cattle which relator claims to have elected to hold under the mortgage were sold for $4,143.29, and the proceeds turned over to the administrator.
The relator seeks to establish a lien upon the fund, and the right is based upon its alleged equitable mortgage upon the cattle which were sold. In order to establish such right to the fund, the relator must prove what is alleged, viz., that the cattle described in the mortgage belonged to Prouty himself, and that relator had the right to appropriate the one hundred fifty head located in Montana after the death of Mr. Prouty, and, further, that, although possession was not obtained after electing to take them, nevertheless a lien attached to the fund in the hands of the administrator.
Conceding that in a proper action the Montana cattle, or the proceeds thereof, might have been appropriated to meet the debt, it is apparent that no such lien could be proven or enforced except with the aid of a court of equity, and in our opinion the probate court possesses no such powers. The principles which determine the jurisdiction of that court can only be ascertained by a careful examination of the authorities. In Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330, 26 N.W. 9, 57 Am. 59 (followed in Dobberstein v. Murphy, 44 Minn. 526, 47 N.W. 171), it was held that the probate court might determine to whom the estate passed upon the death of decedent, but claims made by third parties against the land passing to an heir or devisee, based on the alleged acts of such heir or devisee, and not on the law of descent, were not involved in the administration and must be determined by some other tribunal than...
To continue reading
Request your trial