State v. Probate Court of Hennepin County
| Decision Date | 04 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 31027.,31027. |
| Citation | 273 N.W. 636,200 Minn. 167 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. NORDIN v. PROBATE COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; P. W. Guilford, Judge.
Proceeding for writ of certiorari by the State, on the relation of John A. Nordin, against the Probate Court of Hennepin County and others, and Agnes Erman Smith, administratrix of the estate of Josephine E. Erman, deceased. From an order of the district court quashing the writ, the relator appeals.
Affirmed.
Stiles & Stiles and F. J. Donahue, all of Minneapolis, for appellant.
Thomas Tallakson, of Minneapolis, for respondents.
Appeal from an order of the district court, Hennepin county, quashing a writ of certiorari issued by that court to the probate court of Hennepin county. Appellant was attorney for the respondent Smith while she was administratrix of the estate of Josephine E. Erman, deceased. In her final account, respondent, as administratrix, asked the probate court to allow her a certain sum as attorney's fees for appellant for services rendered by him as her attorney as administratrix. One of the heirs filed objection to the allowance of the account, particularly to the amount of attorney's fees, and to an item of $139 claimed by appellant to have been advanced by him to the administratrix for estate purposes. The dispute over the attorney's fees and claimed advancement was referred to a referee, who found and reported to the probate court that the reasonable value of appellant's services as attorney was $500; that the sum of $139 had been paid to appellant to pay to one Deaver, a creditor of the estate, but that appellant had not given the estate credit for this sum; and that therefore the estate was entitled to a credit against the attorney's fees in the amount of $139. The probate court adopted the findings of the referee and on November 25, 1935, made its order allowing the final account. No appeal was taken from that order. On January 13, 1936, appellant petitioned the district court for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the probate court, claiming that the order was not appealable and that the probate court had no authority to make the $139 deduction from the allowance for fees. The writ was issued on that date. On April 4, 1936, the district court entered its order quashing the writ of certiorari on the ground that the order of the probate court was appealable.
1. The "writ of certiorari" under our practice is a writ of review in the nature of a writ of error or an appeal. Dunnell, Minn.Dig. (2d Ed.) § 1391; Grinager v. Town of Norway, 33 Minn. 127, 128, 22 N.W. 174, 175, in which Mr. Justice Mitchell said the writ "is employed strictly as in the nature of a writ of error," and "the office of the writ is simply to review and correct decisions and determinations already made." P. H. & F. M. Roots Co. v. Decker, 111 Minn. 458, 127 N.W. 417; State ex rel. Tolversen v. District Court, 134 Minn. 435, 159 N.W. 965. In some of the cases the writ is spoken of as being in the nature of an appeal. State ex rel. Sholund v. City of Duluth, 125 Minn. 425, 147 N.W. 820. Ordinarily, only parties to the record are entitled to a review of a decision or judgment. Strangers and third parties have no interest in the litigation and are not entitled to a review of a decision or judgment, whether such review be sought by appeal, writ of error, writ of certiorari, or otherwise. Hunt v. O'Leary, 78 Minn. 281, 80 N.W. 1120. An attorney at law is not a party to his client's litigation by reason of his appearance therein on behalf of the client. The attorney appears solely as the representative of the client and not in his own behalf. He has no interest in the cause of action even though his fees are to be paid out of the funds to be recovered by the litigation. Boogren v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 97 Minn. 51, 106...
To continue reading
Request your trial