Cited by

Berkey v. Judcl, 22 Minn. 287 , 302-; First National Bank y. Loyhed, 28 Minn. 396 , (10 N. W. Ee’p. 421;) Devinney v. Reynolds, 1 Watts & S. 328 ; Forsyth v. Day, 41 Me. 382 .

Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287 ; Deakinv.

Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287 ; Deakin v. Chicago, Mil.

Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287 .

duty of the probate court, after the rendition of the original judg-’ ment, ( 22 Minn. 287 ,) the recovery of which had been resisted by the executors, and of which they were fully cognizant, to order the *274 amount thereof paid; and accordingly, ugon the petition of the plaintiff, such court ordered the executors to show cause why they should not pay the same.

Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287 .

By taking possession in good faith is meant taking possession in •a belief that such taking is rightful; and upon the rule laid down in Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287 , and Garrett v. Mannheimer, 24 Minn. 193 , the fact of good faith may be proved directly by the testimony of the party whose good faith is to be shown.

This brings this case within the doctrine announced by this court in Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287 , as follows: “The better rule, in our judgment, and the one supported by the weight of modern authority, is this: Whenever the motive, belief, or intention of any person is a material fact to be proved under the issue on trial, it is competent to prove it by the direct testimony of such person, whether he happens to

Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 298 ; Brown v. Gurney, 20 Minn. 527 ; Berleey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287 .