Cited by

1072 (1895); Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , 63 N.W.

It was stated in the opinion that a creditor who fails to present a provable claim for allowance in the probate court is barred of his right to recover of the heirs, citing Hill v. Nichols, 47 Minn. 382 , ; Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , , but saying that those cases did not involve a situation where [ 136 Minn. 224 ] “no order limiting the time for the presentment of claims was made, where the only property, a homestead, was decreed to the heirs, and where the plaintiff’s debt was excepted

“A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event, which may or may not happen, and therefore makes it wholly uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 364 , ; Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , .

The reasons for excluding contingent claims from allowance in the administration of estates is fully considered in Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , .

The reasons for excluding contingent claims from allowance in the administration of estates is fully considered in Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , 63 N.W.

Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 364 , ; Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481, 489 , ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , .

Whether it would have accomplished anything depends on circumstances not before us. We have in mind that plaintiff’s remedy on the obligation of Mr. Weis probably was by an action against his heirs or the distributees of his estate, under the rule of Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , .

Hill v. Nichols, 47 Minn. 382 , ; Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , .

The fact that here there had been no breach of the bond, and that there was no claim or demand, differentiates the case at bar from the authorities to which defendant refers us. Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , at page 369, , at page 1072, the court distinctly recites that “there was a breach of the bond.” The conclusion necessarily follows that the liability of the defendant Bowser as executor to this plaintiff was not prevented by sections 3730, 3733, R. L. 1905.

Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , ; State v. Board of Commrs.

Sections 4511, 4514, G. S. 1894, were construed in connection with sections 5918-5925, inclusive, in the case of Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , , and itwas held unnecessary to file for allowance with the probate court contingent claims against a deceased person, in order to vest in a creditor the right to maintain the statutory action against the heirs; that such action might be maintained upon a contingent claim, whether it was filed with the

Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , .

Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , ; Lake Phalen L. & Imp.

Although the case was followed in Lanier v. Irvine, 24 Minn. 116 , it was discredited and branded as unsound in principle in the case of Litchfield v. McDonald, 35 Minn. 167 , , and the last prop taken from under it by the decision in that case, and again in Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 369 , , where it was held that leave to sue on a probate bond was no part of the cause of action, but only a step in the remedy.

Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , ; Duckstad v. Board of Co. Commrs., 69 Minn. 202 , ; Sutherland, St.

Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 366 , .

See Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , 63 N. W. *62 1069 .

G. S. 1894, § 4511; Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , .

Counsel’s contention is based upon that clause of the section before mentioned which provides that *234 “No claim against a decedent shall be a charge against or lien upon his estate unless presented to the probate court as herein provided within five years after the death of such decedent.” In Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , , it was held that contingent claims, arising on contract, which do not become absolute and capable of liquidation before the expiration of the time limited for creditor

Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , ; Lake Phelan v. Lindeke, 66 Minn. 209 , .

Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , ; State v. Board, 67 Minn. 352 , .

S. § 4511, and consequently one not capable of being passed upon in the probate court, and there disposed of, has recently been defined in Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , , as one which does not become absolute and capable of liquidation before the expiration of the time limited by order of the probate court for the presentation of claims against the estaté of one deceased for consideration and allowance or disallowance.

In the case of Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361 , , we held that, where a contingent claim did not become absolute until after the time to file claims in the probate court had expired, such claim was not barred, but when it became absolute the holder of it could proceed by action under G. S. 1894, §§ 5918-5925, against the next of kin and heirs, and r

The writer of this' opinion is relieved of the difficulty of an extended discussion of this question by the opinion just written and filed by the Chief Justice in the case of Hantzch v. Massolt (argued in this court on the same day as this one) supra, p. 861, .