Mumford v. Hall
Supreme Court of Minnesota
On April 17, 1877, John P. Mumford filed a petition in the probate court of Bamsey county, stating that he was a-creditor of the estate of John M. Hall, of New York, deceased, whose will was proved in that court, on June 11 j 1861, in which will the testator named Mary L. Hall executrix, and John J. Cole executor thereof, and constituted the former his-residuary legatee; that the executrix and executor have never given the bond required by statute, nor so 'complied with…
Read the full summary
On April 17, 1877, John P. Mumford filed a petition in the probate court of Bamsey county, stating that he was a-creditor of the estate of John M. Hall, of New York, deceased, whose will was proved in that court, on June 11 j 1861, in which will the testator named Mary L. Hall executrix, and John J. Cole executor thereof, and constituted the former his-residuary legatee; that the executrix and executor have never given the bond required by statute, nor so 'complied with the-law as to entitle them to act as such, or to receive letters testamentary, and that Mary L. Hall has never executed any…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The bond involved in this case is not such as was required either by section 2, or section 3, chapter 41, Public Statutes, the law in force at the time when it was executed.
Looking upon its face, it is quite apparent that the parties executing it did not intend it to be such a bond as is required by section 3 — that is, the bond prescribed for an executor who is also residuary legatee. It was clearly intended to be the ordinary executor’s bond prescribed by section 2. Its condition is “that if the said executrix and executor shall pay all the debts and legacies of the said testator, or such…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Jacobson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Lehman v. NortonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934