Kelly v. Snow

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Kelly v. Snow

210 N.W. 105, 168 Minn. 298, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1560

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 23, 1926

DocketNo. 25,406.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 210 N.W. 105 (Kelly v. Snow) 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

Kelly v. Snow, 210 N.W. 105, 168 Minn. 298, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1560 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Lees, O.

Plaintiffs are the undertakers who provided the casket and officiated at the burial of Dorothy J. Roberts, deceased. The defendants are husband and wife, the wife being a step-daughter of Mrs. Roberts. This action was brought to collect the undertakers’ bill. A jury returned a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor. Defendants’ motion for a new trial was denied and they appealed.

Plaintiffs relied on an express promise by defendants to pay the bill. Defendants denied the promise. The testimony bearing on *299 this, issue would support a verdict for either party, hence the verdict must stand.

A short time after the funeral plaintiffs filed a claim against Mrs. Roberts’ estate for the amount of their bill. The claim was allowed but has not been paid by the representative of the estate. It is argued that by filing the claim plaintiffs elected to look to the estate for the payment of their bill and lost any right they may have had to pursue the defendants, and that plaintiffs’ former attitude is wholly inconsistent with their present claim. Undoubtedly the estate of Mrs. Roberts may be charged with the payment of the expenses of her funeral, but that fact does not prevent plaintiffs from enforcing the promise, which the jury must have found they had obtained from the defendants. If both the estate and the defendants are liable for the payment of the bill, plaintiffs may proceed against either or both until they obtain payment from one ór the other. In Bell v. Mendenhall, 71 Minn. 331, 73 N. W. 1086, it was held that original and separate promises to pay a debt remain intact until the debt is satisfied; that, where there is more than one promise to pay, plaintiff may maintain a separate action on each promise, either at the same or at different times, and that such remedies are not inconsistent. That principle is applicable here and answers the argument of defendants’ counsel.

When defendants pay this bill, they will have a right to call upon the representative of Mrs. Roberts’ estate to reimburse them, if the assets of the estate are sufficient. McNally v. Weld, 30 Minn. 209, 14 N. W. 895; Dun. P. L. § 906; Barrett v. Heim, 152 Minn. 147, 188 N. W. 207.

Order affirmed.

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

Lees, O.

Plaintiffs are the undertakers who provided the casket and officiated at the burial of Dorothy J. Roberts, deceased. The defendants are husband and wife, the wife being a step-daughter of Mrs. Roberts. This action was brought to collect the undertakers’ bill. A jury returned a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor. Defendants’ motion for a new trial was denied and they appealed.

Plaintiffs relied on an express promise by defendants to pay the bill. Defendants denied the promise. The testimony bearing on *299 this, issue would support a verdict for either party, hence the verdict must stand.

A short time after the funeral plaintiffs filed a claim against Mrs. Roberts’ estate for the amount of their bill. The claim was allowed but has not been paid by the representative of the estate. It is argued that by filing the claim plaintiffs elected to look to the estate for the payment of their bill and lost any right they may have had to pursue the defendants, and that plaintiffs’ former attitude is wholly inconsistent with their present claim. Undoubtedly the estate of Mrs. Roberts may be charged with the payment of the expenses of her funeral, but that fact does not prevent plaintiffs from enforcing the promise, which the jury must have found they had obtained from the defendants. If both the estate and the defendants are liable for the payment of the bill, plaintiffs may proceed against either or both until they obtain payment from one ór the other. In Bell v. Mendenhall, 71 Minn. 331, 73 N. W. 1086, it was held that original and separate promises to pay a debt remain intact until the debt is satisfied; that, where there is more than one promise to pay, plaintiff may maintain a separate action on each promise, either at the same or at different times, and that such remedies are not inconsistent. That principle is applicable here and answers the argument of defendants’ counsel.

When defendants pay this bill, they will have a right to call upon the representative of Mrs. Roberts’ estate to reimburse them, if the assets of the estate are sufficient. McNally v. Weld, 30 Minn. 209, 14 N. W. 895; Dun. P. L. § 906; Barrett v. Heim, 152 Minn. 147, 188 N. W. 207.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 N.W. 105, 168 Minn. 298, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-snow-minn-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack