In re Nicolin

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In re Nicolin

61 N.W. 330, 59 Minn. 323, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 161

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 7, 1894

DocketNo. 9067

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.W. 330 (In re Nicolin) 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

In re Nicolin, 61 N.W. 330, 59 Minn. 323, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 161 (Mich. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

One blicolin, an insolvent, made an assignment of all his property for the benefit of his creditors to the appellant, Hilgers, who qualified and acted as such until removed by the order of the District Court upon the petition of the majority of the creditors. From the order removing him, Hilgers appealed to this court, where the order was affirmed. 55 Minn. 130; (56 N. W. 587.)

Upon the settlement of his account as assignee after the case was [325]*325remanded, the District Court disallowed Ms claim for disbursements made in prosecuting the appeal to tMs court. The District Court was clearly right. In prosecuting the appeal to this court, Hilgers was acting in the interest of himself personally, and not of the trust estate. It was immaterial to the estate whether Hilgers or somebody else was assignee. The estate wrould not have been benefited by the expenditure, even if the appeal had terminated in Hilgers’ favor. It was a matter which only affected him personally, and not the estate. To reimburse him out of the trust estate for the expense of an unsuccessful appeal of this nature would be against both law and natural justice.

Order affirmed.

Gileillan, C. J., absent on account of sickness, took no part.

(Opinion published 61 N. W. 330.)

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

Mitchell, J.

One blicolin, an insolvent, made an assignment of all his property for the benefit of his creditors to the appellant, Hilgers, who qualified and acted as such until removed by the order of the District Court upon the petition of the majority of the creditors. From the order removing him, Hilgers appealed to this court, where the order was affirmed. 55 Minn. 130; (56 N. W. 587.)

Upon the settlement of his account as assignee after the case was [325]*325remanded, the District Court disallowed Ms claim for disbursements made in prosecuting the appeal to tMs court. The District Court was clearly right. In prosecuting the appeal to this court, Hilgers was acting in the interest of himself personally, and not of the trust estate. It was immaterial to the estate whether Hilgers or somebody else was assignee. The estate wrould not have been benefited by the expenditure, even if the appeal had terminated in Hilgers’ favor. It was a matter which only affected him personally, and not the estate. To reimburse him out of the trust estate for the expense of an unsuccessful appeal of this nature would be against both law and natural justice.

Order affirmed.

Gileillan, C. J., absent on account of sickness, took no part.

(Opinion published 61 N. W. 330.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.W. 330, 59 Minn. 323, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nicolin-minn-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack