Lake v. Albert
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Peter Albert was appointed administrator of the estate of Ole Emerson Yolof, deceased, by the probate eourt of Otter Tail county. F. H. Lake filed a claim against the estate, which was disallowed by the probate court. Thereupon Lake made, served, and filed in the probate court a notice of appeal to the district court.
Read the full summary
Peter Albert was appointed administrator of the estate of Ole Emerson Yolof, deceased, by the probate eourt of Otter Tail county. F. H. Lake filed a claim against the estate, which was disallowed by the probate court. Thereupon Lake made, served, and filed in the probate court a notice of appeal to the district court. The appeal was heard in that court before Baxter, J., without a jury, no pleadings having been made as required by Gen. St. 1878, c. 53, § 27, and judgment was directed in favor of Lake. The administrator appeals from an order refusing a new trial. The claim consisted of a note…
1Opinion of the CourtDiceinson, J.
1.' The right of appeal to the district court from the order of the probate court disallowing the plaintiff’s claim was regulated by section 24 and the following sections, of chapter 53, Gen. St. 1878. Auerbach v. Gloyd, 34 Minn. 500, (27 N. W. Rep. 193.) This section specifies, as a means of effecting an appeal, the filing in the probate court of an “application for such appeal.” In view of the fact that the party seeking to appeal had a right to do so, which the court could not refuse, it is considered that a notice of appeal, served and filed, was all that was required by the language or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Auerbach v. GloydSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
3Cited by4 opinions
- McLean v. DeanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Doepke v. JoslynSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Struckmeyer v. LambSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- In Re Estate of SpeissSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927