In re the Estate of Hardy

28 N.W. 219, 35 Minn. 193, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 85
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 21, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 28 N.W. 219 (In re the Estate of Hardy) 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 the Estate of Hardy, 28 N.W. 219, 35 Minn. 193, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 85 (Mich. 1886).

Opinion

Berry, J.

The probate court of Freeborn county duly appointed the respondent administratrix of the estate of Frank Hardy, and, having duly qualified, she, as administratrix, brought an action under [194]*194the statute (Gen. St. 1878 c. 77, § 2,) against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, to recover damages for the wrongful killing of her intestate. Thereupon the company appealed from the order-appointing respondent administratrix, to the district court, by which the appeal was, in our opinion, rightfully dismissed.

Gen. St. 1878, c. 49, § 14, provides that an appeal from such an order “can only be taken by a party aggrieved.” This does not include a mere debtor of the estate. It refers to one who, as heir, devisee, legatee, or creditor, has what may be called a legal interest in the assets of the estate, and their due administration. A mere debtor of a decedent’s estate may have a personal preference as to who shall be appointed administrator, but in law that is a question in which he has no interest, and therefore its determination in one way or another cannot aggrieve him in any legal sense. His simple duty is to pay his debt to the administrator, whoever he may be. How the estate is administered, or by whom, is nothing to him. The case of one against whom an administrator has a right of .action under the statute cited cannot stand upon any different footing. If for any reason the appointment of an administrator is invalid, so that he is not an administrator, that fact can be taken advantage of in any suit which he may assume to bring in that character.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

In Re Critchell Estate
105 N.W.2d 417 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1960)
Gabel v. Ferodowill
95 N.W.2d 101 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1959)
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Davis
309 S.W.2d 137 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1957)
In Re Dugan
309 S.W.2d 137 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1957)
Estate of Bily
215 P.2d 78 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Persky v. Greever
202 S.W.2d 303 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1947)
Smaltz Glove Co. v. Upton
92 P.2d 210 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)
State ex rel. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Probate Court
184 N.W. 43 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1921)
Wilkinson v. Nowers
217 Ill. App. 314 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1920)
Worthen v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
93 A. 1036 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1915)
Bell v. Davis
1914 OK 365 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Tuttle v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.
172 Ill. App. 532 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1912)
Burmeister v. Gust
135 N.W. 980 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1912)
In Re Estate of Mayo
54 L.R.A. 660 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1901)
Edgerly v. Alexander
84 N.W. 653 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 N.W. 219, 35 Minn. 193, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hardy-minn-1886.