Cited by

We noted in Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29, 38 , , 69 L. R. A. 785, that— “* * * where courts have refused to compel specific performance on the ground of doubt on a question of law arising upon the construction or legal effect of record muniments of title, it has been where not only was the doubt a grave one, but where there were interested p

Even if erroneous, it is nevertheless binding and conclusive, until reversed on appeal or set aside by some proper proceeding.” In Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29, 35 , , 69 L. R. A. 785, involving the construction of a will, we said: “Whether this decree was in accordance with the correct construction of the will or not, it is binding and conclusive upon all persons interested in the estate of the deceased, whether under disability or not, or whether then in b

Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 158 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L. R. A. 785.

124 ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , 64 N.W.

Plaintiffs claim that it does and cite the case of Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29, 32 , , 69 L. R. A. 785.

Dana v. Probate Court, 40 Minn. 296 , ; In re Scheffer’s Estate, 58 Minn. 29 , ; Schmidt v. Stark, 61 Minn. 91 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L. R. A. 785; Ganser v. Ganser, 83 Minn. 199 , , 85 A. S. R. 461; State ex rel.

The following may be noted as involving some features similar to the situation here, and to that extent helpful: George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Horn v. Butler, 39 Minn. 515 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L. R. A. 785; Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , ; Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , *276 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1170, 114 Am.

dant contends that the probate decree is a judgment “conclusive against the world” and “immune from attack.” It is indeed a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction and in general it may be said “it is undoubtedly final unless reversed, and concludes all' parties interested as to everything necessarily involved in the decree.” Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L.R.A.

Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L. R. A. 785; Chadbourne v. Hartz, 93 Minn. 233 , .

Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , .

Co. 44 Minn. 5 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L.R.A.

In Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L. R. A. 785, and Mathews v. Lightner, 85 Minn. 333 , , it was held thata title is not unmarketable when no question of fact is involved, but only one of law arising exclusively upon the construction of a record muniment of title and all the parties in interest are before the court, so

Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29, .

Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , .

Grignon’s Lessee v. Astor, supra; Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , ; Eddy v. Kelly, 72 Minn. 32 , ; Bengtsson v. Johnson, 75 Minn. 321 , .

Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , .

If such an action is necessary, resort must be had to some other forum, for the probate court has no further jurisdiction.” See, also, In re Scheffer’s Estate, 58 Minn. 29 , , Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29, 36 , , and Ganser v. Ganser, 83 Minn. 199 , .

Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , .

d, and therefore, by accepting the devise, she became personally liable for the payment of the legacies; and, second, that this was the construction placed on the will by the probate court in the decree of distribution, and that, whether correct or incorrect, it is conclusive upon all parties inter *36 ested in the estate,—citing Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , ; State v. Jamison, 69 Minn. 427 , .

The same principle was applied in Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , .