Cited by

[5] In re Layman's Will, 40 Minn. 371 , 42 N.W.

In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , ; Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , .

We cited and followed the case of In re Layman's Will, 40 Minn. 371 , 42 N.W.

inciple and what seems to be the weight of judicial authority, we hold that the statute in question is for the protection of the patient, and he may waive the privilege if he sees fit, and that, as a general rule, those who represent him after his death may also waive the privilege, for the protection of interests which they claim under him.” We cited and followed the case of In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , .

Matter of Will of Layman, 40 Minn. 371 , ; Tobin v. Haack, 79 Minn. 101 , ; Kennedy v. Kelly, 123 Minn. 259 , .

In In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371, 372 , , the court, speaking of the secrecy enjoined by G. S. 1923 ( 2 Mason, 1927 ) § 9814(2), says: “The object of the rule, so far as it relates to this class of communications, being the protection of the estate, there remains no reason for continuing it when the very foundation upon which it proceeds

In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , ; Kennedy v. Kelly, 123 Minn. 259 , ; Bush v. Hetherington, 132 Minn. 379 , .

In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , ; Kennedy v. Kelly, 123 Minn. 259 , .

Under our statutes (section 7268, G. S. 1913), as construed in In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , , since only one of the witnesses to the will *381 was living, it was incumbent upon proponent to establish prima facie the sound mind of testatrix at the time the will was.

In this connection Coates v. Semper, 82 Minn. 460 , , and In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , , may be examined.

We need not stop to consider whether the objection was well taken, within the rule stated in In re Layman, 40 Minn. 371 , , for the ruling was not followed by any offer to show that the ailment which the doctor was treating had any relation to testator’s mental condition.

In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , .

In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , ; Winters v. Winters, 102 Iowa, 53 , , 63 Am.

ional duty.” We are clear that this precise question has been disposed of by this court, where the rule has been laid down, germane to the legal proposition thus raised, that the testimony of the attorney, given under circumstances similar to its reception in this case, is not privileged, but “serves to protect the estate, and tends to aid a proper disposition of it.” In matter of Will of Layman, 40 Minn. 371, 373 , .

In re Layman’s Will, 40 Minn. 371 , .