Cited by

5 See, e.g., In re Iverson’s Appeal, 249 Minn. 156 , Comstock v. Mathews, 55 Minn. 111 , 56 N.W.

See, also, Minnesota Odd Fellows Home v. Pogue, 245 Minn. 539 , Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , 56 N.W.

Nelson v. Probate Court, 199 Minn. 297 , ; Wilson v. Erickson, 147 Minn. 260 , ; Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , .

Martin v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 236 , ; Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , ; 21 Minn. L. Rev. 211 ; 23 Id.

1913D, 462; Oswald v. Pillsbury, 61 Minn. 520 , ; Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. *228 111 , .

Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , .

Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , 56 N.W.

As said in In re Estate of Peterson, 198 Minn. 45, 49 , , following Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , , the constitution in committing to probate courts jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons and those under guardianship did so without defining its extent and left the limitations thereon to be fixed by statute within the general powers named.

The leading case in this state on probate jurisdiction is Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , , in which Mr. Justice Mitchell discussed the subject in his characteristically clear manner.

The leading case in this state on probate jurisdiction is Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , 56 N.W.

In Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , , this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Mitchell, held that liability for trespass survived the death of the tortfeasor and that suit therefor might and should be brought in the district court against the personal representative of his estate without filing the claim in the probate court.

Berkey v. Judd, 27 Minn. 475 , ; Whitney v. Pinney, 51 Minn. 146 , ; Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , ; Oswald v. Pillsbury, 61 Minn. 520 , ; Connecticut Mut.

Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , .

Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , ; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 236 , .

Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , ; Clark v. Gates, 84 Minn. 381 , .

While there is no doubt of the correctness of our holding, the following cases are useful to note: Pflaum v. Babb, 86 Minn. 395 , ; Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , ; In re Hause, 32 Minn. 155 , .

59 ; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 236 , ; Comstock, v. Matthews, 55 Minn. *8 111 , State v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 103 Minn. 325 , .

Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , , illustrates the restricted character of the court’s jurisdiction as limited by the statute, and it was held that the court had no jurisdiction to determine claims arising in tort, but that .the claimant must bring his action against the personal representatives in the dis *329 trict or other court of

See Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , .

Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , ; State v. Probate Court of Rock Co., 66 Minn. 246 , ; Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , .

But appellant seems to take the position that the Foster claim sounded in tort, and for that reason the statute has no application, citing Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. Ill, , in which it was held that the statute governs only when claims arising on contract are involved.

In the case of Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111 , , it was held that the common law, as well as the statutory rule, is that “all causes of action by one against another which do not die w'ith a person survive to the personal representative of the former against the personal representative of the latter.” That case was one where the decedent had unlawfu