Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 Minn. 261

Waterman v. Millard

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 25, 1875

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1875-10-25

<p>Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Nicollet county, Hanscome, J., presiding.</p>

Relies on Wood v. Myrick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-10-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1906

3 state decisions

101875188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gileillan, C. J.

¶1Action upon an administrator’s bond to recover the remainder of a claim due the plaintiff, as allowed by the commissioners, part of the claim having been paid by the administrator after it was allowed by the commissioners. At the May term, 1875, of the district court the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court granted the motion on the ground that the complaint does not show that the probate court had made any order or decree of distribution, or for payment of the debts, and judgment was ■entered accordingly.

¶2No such order or decree is set up in the complaint, and for this reason it is, according to the decision in Wood v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 494, fatally defective. By that case, it *262was decided that no cause of action arises on the bond in favor of a creditor until the debt, or some part of it, has been ordered to be paid by the decree of distribution. The decision makes no distinction in this respect between solvent and insolvent estates, and we think the statute intends none.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/22/minn/261 · .json · Public domain