Lanier v. Irvine
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, Wilkin, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint. cited Barnard v. Viele, 21 Wend. 88 ; Dixon v. U. S., 1 Brock. 177 ; U. S. v.-, 1 Brock. 195; Com. v. Laub, 1 Watts & Serg. 261.
1Opinion of the CourtBerrv, J.
This is an action upon an administrator’s bond. The only point made by defendants, upon this appeal, which we need consider, is that the bond is void, because it is not conditioned in accordance with the requirements of the statutes in force at the time of its execution. *448The statutory provisions referred to (Pub. Stat. ch. 41, § 2 ch. 42, § 4,) required an administrator to give a bond conditioned “to make and return to the probate court, within three months, a true and perfect inventory of all the goods, chattels, rights, credits and estate of the deceased, which shall come to his possession…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tayloe v. Thomson's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- Probate Court v. StrongSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
3Cited by4 opinions
- Balch v. HooperSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Fairmont Cement Stone Manufacturing Co. v. DavisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Huntsman v. HooperSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Drake v. DrakeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921