Cited by

Bengtson v. Setterberg, 227 Minn. 337 , Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , 2 N.W.

ceeding.” 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 being or not.” In Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , , the court, by its decree of distribution, assigned the real estate of the decedent to a trustee unde

Beals v. Probate Court, 25 Minn. 22 ; Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; Granger v. Harriman, 89 Minn. 303 , ; Kern v. Cooper, 91 Minn. 121 , ; Wellner v. Eckstein, 105 Minn. 444 , ; Estate of Boyd v. Thomas, 162 Minn. 63 , ; Lyngen v. Tessum, 169 Minn. 304 , ; In re Estate of Bergman, 182 Minn. 128 , 233 N.

State v. Ramsey County Probate Court, 25 Minn. 22 ; Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , .

Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mfg.

Defendant 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.

The question was considered in Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , .

G. S. 1894, § 4376; R. L. 1905, § 3204; Simpson v. Cook, supra; Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; Herzog v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 177 N. Y. 86, 99 , 69 N. E. 283 , 67 L. R. A. 146.

Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , .

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 , .

It was urged by counsel for testator that the probate court had passed upon this question, and had, in a proper proceeding, determined that the selection of certain securities to execute this trust was final, and concluded plaintiff thereby, under the authority of Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ; but examination of the decree of distribution does not show that that court decided this question, or in this respect construed the will.

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

charge on the person of the devisee of the land, 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 , .

Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , .

This is an erroneous view of the jurisdiction of the probate court in proceedings for the proof and allowance of a will.- The question was considered and determined in Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

The title to real estate passes to the heir or devisee upon the death of the ancestor or devisor, subject, however, to the claims of administration upon it, — to the necessity to sell the whole or any part in administering the estate, (Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 ,) and the probate court, in its decree assigning the estate, determines who are the heirs or devisees, and what part of the estate is, after administration, to be assigned to the share of each.

Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 .

Greenwood v. Murray, 26 Minn. 259 .