Cited by

*157 In Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93, 98 , , we said: “* * * it is also generally true that if a probate decree is deliberately entered into as the result of a judicial construction of the will, with no fraud and no mistake other than an erroneous construction of law, the power of the court to amend such decree is exhausted upon the

Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93, 98 , .

In Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93, 96 , , this court said: “Where an immediate gift is made to a class and the right exists to have the property distributed at once on the death of the testator, the persons constituting the class are determined as of the death of the testator.

In Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93, 96 , 163 N.W.

966 ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , 163 N.W.

In re Estate of Gragg, 32 Minn. 142 , ; Larson v. How, 71 Minn. 250 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; In re Estate of Eklund, 174 Minn. 28 , ; In re Estate of Koffel, 175 Minn. 524 , ; In re Estate of Holum, 179 Minn. 315 , ; In re Estate of Walker, 183 Minn. 325 , ; In re Estate of Simon, 187 Minn. 399 , ; In re Estate of Jordan, 1

In re Estate of Sherk, 191 Minn. 143 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; note, 75 A. L. R. 773, 804.

365 ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , 163 N.W.

In the case of Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , 97 , 163 N.W.

In the case of Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93, 97 , , while the question there presented was whether grandchildren born after the testator’s death should be included in the benefits provided for grandchildren, this court held, following the greater number of authorities: “That Avhere a gift is to a class, as children or grandchildren, and the

lled the estate upon the death of their mother took a contingent, not a vested, remainder — the trust being for the benefit of his wife for life “and after her death for the benefit of my children (or their survivors) in the proportion that each would be entitled to under law.” Other cases in this court of some aid here are Johrden v. Pond, 126 Minn. 247 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; Heffelfinger v. Appleton, 144 Minn. 208 , ; In re Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , .

See Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , , and State ex rel.

Tomlinson v. Phelps, 93 Minn. 350 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; Connelly v. Carnegie D. & F. Co. 148 Minn. 333 , ; First T. & S. Bank v. U. S. F. & G. Co. 161 Minn. 88 , ; Id.

This construction appears to conform exactly to a rule stated in Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93, 97 , , if the last nine words thereof are omitted: *147 “Where a gift is to a class, as children or grandchildren., and the right of enjoyment is postponed beyond the time that the gift vests in right, and until the termination of a preceding estate, the members of the class entitled to take will

This construction appears to conform exactly to a rule stated in Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , 97 , 163 N.W.

Leighton v. Bruce, 132 Minn. 176 , ; Robinson v. Thomson, 137 Minn. 446 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; Bruski v. Bruski, 148 Minn. 458 , .

In Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , , it is held that if the decree was obtained by fraud or was the result of mistake of fact relief may be had in equity.

G. S. 1923 ( 2 Mason, 1927 ) § 8701; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; In re Estate of Koffel, 175 Minn. 521 , ; In re Estate of Holum, 179 Minn. 315 , .

The right to amend was here exhausted, except where good grounds are clearly shown, as indicated by Tomlinson v. Phelps, 93 Minn. 350 , ; Leighton v. Bruce, 132 Minn. 176 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; DeWolf v. Ericson, 175 Minn. 68 , .

G. S. 1923 ( 2 Mason, 1927 ) §§ 8701(4) and 8983(8); Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; In re Estate of Koffel, 175 Minn. 524 , .

Plaintiff did not bring himself within such decisions as Leighton v. Bruce, 132 Minn. 176 , ; Robinson v. Thomson, 137 Minn. 446 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; Schmitz v. Martin, 149 Minn. 386 , , which were all direct attacks on the decrees of the probate court, or came to the district court on a'ppeal from the action Of the probate court Refusing or granting an application to open its decree.

Lord v. Bazille, 89 Minn. 440 , ; Tomlinson v. Phelps, 93 Minn. 350 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , .

This construction finds support in Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , , and in In re Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , .

G. S. 1913, §§ 7211, 7490; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93 , ; Greenough v. Small, 137 Pa.

Leighton v. Bruce, 132 Minn. 176 , ; Bobinson v. Thomson, 137 Minn. 446 , ; Savela v. Erickson, 138 Minn. 93, 98 , .