Stuart v. Stuart
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hubbard county, Holland, J., striking out a complaint because not conforming to the claim as filed in the probate court. A variance between the claim as filed in the probate court and as alleged in the complaint in the appeal to the district court is immaterial, unless it is shown that the respondent is prejudiced or surprised thereby. 28 Am. & Eng. Enc.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hubbard county, Holland, J., striking out a complaint because not conforming to the claim as filed in the probate court. A variance between the claim as filed in the probate court and as alleged in the complaint in the appeal to the district court is immaterial, unless it is shown that the respondent is prejudiced or surprised thereby. 28 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 53, 54; McGregor v. Fuller, 72 Iowa, 143; Place v. Minster, 65 N. Y. 89; Catlin v. Gunter, 11 N. Y. 368; Sussdorff v. Schmidt, 55 N. Y. 319; Blackman v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 299…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
The plaintiff herein presented for allowance in the probate court .a claim amounting to $780 against the estate of Alexander D. ■-'Stuart, deceased, and upon its disallowance appealed. In the dis*48trict court and upon its direction, as provided in G. S. 1894, § 4673, plaintiff made his written complaint, whereupon, on motion of the attorneys for the defendant executrix, the same was stricken out for the reason, as stated in the order, that it did not conform to the claim filed in probate court. From this order plaintiff appeals.
The claim, as presented in probate court, consisted of three items,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Savage v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Doepke v. JoslynSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- In Re Estate of SpeissSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Mason v. SavageSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919