Cited by

Here, that is precisely what we would sanction if we should sustain the method adopted below for enforcing contribution against the representative, for the plain reasons that the proceedings in the probate court would not be subject to control of the district court (O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , ), and by such pro *357 ceedings the representative would be denied all right of an opportunity for judicial determination of the question whether he is liable at all for contribution.

Lord v. Bazille, 89 Minn. 440 , ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , ; Mundinger v. Breeze, 188 Minn. 621 , .

Here, that is precisely what we would sanction if we should sustain the method adopted below for enforcing contribution against the representative, for the plain reasons that the proceedings in the probate court would not be subject to control of the district court (O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , ), and by such proceedings the representative would be denied all right of an opportunity for judicial determination of the question whether he is liable at all for contribution.

By so much as what was said in O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , , diverges from this decision, we deem it an incorrect expression of our law.

By so much as what was said in O'Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , 74 N.W.

In O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , , it was held that error of the probate court in allowing claims which were outlawed did not go to the jurisdiction of the court.

In O'Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , 74 N.W.

In O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , , the syllabus, referring to the action of the probate court in allowing a claim presented after five years had expired since the death of the decedent, states: “The probate court erroneously allowed claims not presented within the five years”; but, because no correction of the error was sought in that

O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , .

Such being the facts disclosed and admitted by the pleadings, the following decisions, in addition to those already mentioned, justified the learned trial court in ordering judgment on the pleadings: Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , ; Bisseberg v. Ree, 99 Minn. 481 , ; Betcher v. Midland Nat.

Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , ; Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , ; Geisberg v. O’Laughlin, 88 Minn. 431 , ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , .

use, 23 Minn. 51 ; State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; State v. Probate Court of Sibley County, 33 Minn. 94 , ; Wiswell v. Wiswell, 35 Minn. 371 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Reiser v. Gigrich, 59 Minn. 368 , ; Boltz v.Schutz, 61 Minn. 444 , ; Starkey v. Sweeney, 71 Minn. 241 , ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; Duxbury v. Shanahan, 84 Minn. 353 , ; Appleby v. Watkins, 95 Minn. 455 , ; Gary, Probate Law (3d Ed.) §§ 565 and 566; R. L. 1905, §§ :

It is the contention of appellant, the executor, that the statements filed by claimants were “claims” within the meaning of our statutes, and the order of the probate court allowing the same was final, citing State v. Probate Court, 25 Minn. 22, 27 , and O’Brien v. Larsen, 71 Minn. 371 , .

The statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its most obvious import.” And see Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ; Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371, 374 , ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , .

This limitation of the statute has been further approved and sustained in Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , , and O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , .