Carson v. Carson

232 N.W. 788, 181 Minn. 432, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 999
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedOctober 31, 1930
DocketNo. 28,084.
StatusPublished

This text of 232 N.W. 788 (Carson v. Carson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carson v. Carson, 232 N.W. 788, 181 Minn. 432, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 999 (Mich. 1930).

Opinion

Wilson, C. J.

The representative of the estate of Mary J. Carson, deceased, filed his final account in probate court. It included an item of $3,132.80 as attorney’s fees. Upon the day for hearing on said account an objection was made to this item, and a trial thereon was had. From an order directing the representative to pay the item the objecting *433 heir appealed to the district court, which granted a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order was not appealable. The appeal to this court followed.

The order did not allow a claim against the estate. Nor did it allow or disallow the final account. The order related only to the one item in the account and directed its payment. It was not appealable. G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 8983; State ex rel. Krey v. Probate Court, 51 Minn. 241, 53 N. W. 463; Smith v. Pence, 62 Minn. 321, 64 N. W. 822; State ex rel. Neuman v. Probate Court, 76 Minn. 132, 78 N. W. 1039. Such an order is reviewable by certiorari. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 1394.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Krey v. Probate Court
53 N.W. 463 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1892)
Smith v. Pence
64 N.W. 822 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1895)
State ex rel. Neuman v. Probate Court
78 N.W. 1039 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 N.W. 788, 181 Minn. 432, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carson-v-carson-minn-1930.