Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Davis v. Hudson, 11 N.W. 136.

59 citing documents.

Leslie v. Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts 259 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1977
Leslie v. Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts 259 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1977
See, In re Guardianship of Hudson, 226 Minn. 532 , d *903 848 (1948); Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , 11 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Anderson v. United States Veterans Hospital 128 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1964
State Ex Rel. Anderson v. United States Veterans Hospital 128 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1964
McNamara v. Casserly, 61 Minn. 340 , ; Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , .
Bengtson v. Setterberg 35 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1949
Bengtson v. Setterberg 35 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1949
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ; McNamara v. Casserly, 61 Minn. 335 , .
Corwin v. Willyard 33 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1948
In Re Guardianship of Hudson 33 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1948
In Re Guardianship of Hudson 33 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1948
2 Jasperson v. Jacobson, 224 Minn. 76 , ; Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , 11 N.W.
Corwin v. Willyard 33 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1948
Jasperson v. Jacobson, 224 Minn. 76 , 27 N. W. (2d) 788 ; Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ; State ex rel.
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27, 32 , ; Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz, 135 Ill.
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Probate Court 283 N.W. 545 Minn. 1938
In Re Estate of Firle 253 N.W. 889 Minn. 1934
In Re Estate of O'Connor 253 N.W. 18 Minn. 1934
O'Connor v. St. Joseph's Provincial House 253 N.W. 18 Minn. 1934
O'Connor v. St. Joseph's Provincial House 253 N.W. 18 Minn. 1934
In their sphere, our probate courts have “all the power which any court has.” Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27, 35 , ; 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
In Re Estate of O'Connor 253 N.W. 18 Minn. 1934
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , 35 , 11 N.W.
State Ex Rel. Degen v. Freeman 210 N.W. 14 Minn. 1926
State Ex Rel. Degen v. Freeman 210 N.W. 14 Minn. 1926
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ; McNamara v. Casserly, 61 Minn. 335 , ; Dun.
State ex rel. Hilton v. Probate Court 172 N.W. 902 Minn. 1919
Doran v. Kennedy 141 N.W. 851 Minn. 1913
Doran v. Kennedy 141 N.W. 851 Minn. 1913
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , .
Hanson v. Nygaard 117 N.W. 235 Minn. 1908
Hanson v. Nygaard 117 N.W. 235 Minn. 1908
But for the fact that the defect in the publication of the notice is stipulated, the question could not be raised in this proceeding, as the presumption in favor of the jurisdiction of the court would be conclusive, under the decision in Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , .
Cater v. Steeves 103 N.W. 885 Minn. 1905
Cater v. Steeves 103 N.W. 885 Minn. 1905
G. S. 1894, § 4611; Babcock v. Cobb, 11 Minn. 247 (347); Montour v. Purdy, 11 Minn. 278 (384); Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ; Hartley v. Croze, 38 Minn. 325 , ; Kurtz v. St.
Hadley v. Bourdeaux 95 N.W. 1109 Minn. 1903
Hadley v. Bourdeaux 95 N.W. 1109 Minn. 1903
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , .
Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Manufacturing Co. 90 N.W. 378 Minn. 1902
Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Manufacturing Co. 90 N.W. 378 Minn. 1902
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 , .
State ex rel. Kelly v. Kilbourne 71 N.W. 396 Minn. 1897
State ex rel. Kelly v. Kilbourne 71 N.W. 396 Minn. 1897
McNamara v. Casserly, 61 Minn. 340 , ; Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , .
Buntin v. Root 69 N.W. 330 Minn. 1896
Buntin v. Root 69 N.W. 330 Minn. 1896
But prior to the decision of Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , , it seems to have been erroneously assumed that, after the adoption of the constitution, probate courts were still courts of special and limited jurisdiction, and that their records did not import absolute verity.
McNamara v. Casserly 63 N.W. 880 Minn. 1895
McNamara v. Casserly 63 N.W. 880 Minn. 1895
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , .
Kurtz v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad 63 N.W. 1 Minn. 1895
Kurtz v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad 63 N.W. 1 Minn. 1895
Dayton v. Mintzer, 22 Minn. 393 ; Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ; Curran v. Kuby, 37 Minn. 330 , ; Menage v. Jones, 40 Minn. 254 , .
Logenfiel v. Richter 61 N.W. 826 Minn. 1895
Logenfiel v. Richter 61 N.W. 826 Minn. 1895
Dayton v. Mintzer, 22 Minn. 393 ; Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , .
Kurtz v. St. Paul & Duluth R. Co. 51 N.W. 221 Minn. 1892
Kurtz v. St. Paul & Duluth R. Co. 51 N.W. 221 Minn. 1892
But in Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
West Duluth Land Co. v. Kurtz 47 N.W. 1134 Minn. 1891
West Duluth Land Co. v. Kurtz 47 N.W. 1134 Minn. 1891
Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Stahl v. Mitchell 43 N.W. 385 Minn. 1889
Stahl v. Mitchell 43 N.W. 385 Minn. 1889
Yet in Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Menage v. Jones 41 N.W. 972 Minn. 1889
Menage v. Jones 41 N.W. 972 Minn. 1889
This being so, the proposition in Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Beebe 41 N.W. 232 Minn. 1889