Peterson v. Baillif

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Peterson v. Baillif

54 N.W. 185, 52 Minn. 386, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 432

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 28, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 54 N.W. 185 (Peterson v. Baillif) 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

Peterson v. Baillif, 54 N.W. 185, 52 Minn. 386, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 432 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickinson, J.

This action was instituted in the District Court to recover the purchase price of certain land of the infant plaintiffs, alleged to have been duly sold and conveyed by their general guardian, one St. Martin, to the defendant, for the price of $650.

The complaint, alleges that this price has not been paid, and that the plaintiffs’ general guardian, St. Martin, refuses to collect the same. The defense interposed by the answer of the defendant is that he had paid the money to St. Martin, and that the latter had accounted for it in the Probate Court having jurisdiction of the matter.

The case coming to trial, and it appearing that the plaintiffs were still under guardianship of the Probate Court, the court dismissed ,the action, on motion of the defendant, upon the ground that it had not jurisdiction. This was error. The District Court not only had jurisdiction of such an action, but its jurisdiction was exclusive of that of the Probate Court. An action could not have been prosecuted in the Probate Court against the purchaser of the land to recover the purchase price. Such an action would not be within the jurisdiction of that court.

It is, however, suggested that the order should be affirmed on the ground that the infants are not the proper parties to prosecute such an action; that it should be prosecuted by their general guardian. But the infants are the real parties in interest, for whose benefit the action is prosecuted, whether it be through the intervention or at the instance of the general guardian, or of a guardian ad litem, and the action should be prosecuted in the name of the minors by the guardian who may be authorized to act in their behalf. Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 48 Minn. 82, (50 N. W. Rep. 1022.) It being alleged that the general guardian refuses to collect the purchase price of the land sold, the action is properly brought in the name of the minors by a guardian appointed for the purpose.

Order reversed.

(Opinion published 54 N. .W. Rep. 185.)

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

Dickinson, J.

This action was instituted in the District Court to recover the purchase price of certain land of the infant plaintiffs, alleged to have been duly sold and conveyed by their general guardian, one St. Martin, to the defendant, for the price of $650.

The complaint, alleges that this price has not been paid, and that the plaintiffs’ general guardian, St. Martin, refuses to collect the same. The defense interposed by the answer of the defendant is that he had paid the money to St. Martin, and that the latter had accounted for it in the Probate Court having jurisdiction of the matter.

The case coming to trial, and it appearing that the plaintiffs were still under guardianship of the Probate Court, the court dismissed ,the action, on motion of the defendant, upon the ground that it had not jurisdiction. This was error. The District Court not only had jurisdiction of such an action, but its jurisdiction was exclusive of that of the Probate Court. An action could not have been prosecuted in the Probate Court against the purchaser of the land to recover the purchase price. Such an action would not be within the jurisdiction of that court.

It is, however, suggested that the order should be affirmed on the ground that the infants are not the proper parties to prosecute such an action; that it should be prosecuted by their general guardian. But the infants are the real parties in interest, for whose benefit the action is prosecuted, whether it be through the intervention or at the instance of the general guardian, or of a guardian ad litem, and the action should be prosecuted in the name of the minors by the guardian who may be authorized to act in their behalf. Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 48 Minn. 82, (50 N. W. Rep. 1022.) It being alleged that the general guardian refuses to collect the purchase price of the land sold, the action is properly brought in the name of the minors by a guardian appointed for the purpose.

Order reversed.

(Opinion published 54 N. .W. Rep. 185.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 N.W. 185, 52 Minn. 386, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-baillif-minn-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack