Cited by

In Perine v. Grand *207 Lodge A. O. U. W. 48 Minn. 82, 90 , , the court said that in order for a person to be disqualified as a witness by reason of an interest: “* * * The interest must be pecuniary, certain, direct, and immediate, and not an uncertain, contingent, remote, or a merely possible interest.” It is apparent from the facts already recited

Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , .

5 Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , ; Madson v. Madson, 69 Minn. 37 , ; Towle v. Sherer, 70 Minn. 312 , ; *66 Pitzl v. Winter, 96 Minn. 499 , , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.)

See Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , ; Madson v. Madson, 69 Minn. 37 , ; Kells v. Webster, 71 Minn. 276 , ; Noesen v. M. St.

The interest must be pecuniary, certain, direct, and immediate, and not an uncertain, contingent, remote, or a merely possible interest.” Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82, 90 , .

Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , 50 N.W.

Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , ; Richardson v. Kotek, 123 Minn. 360 , ; and see In re Estate of Peterson, 197 Minn. 344 , , as to appeal by an executor.

See Dalsgaard v. Meierding, 140 Minn. 388 , ; Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. 48 Minn. 82 , ; G. S. 1923 ( 2 Mason, 1927 ) § 9172; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Marvin v. Dutcher, 26 Minn. 391 , ; State v. Eisele, 37 Minn. 256 , ; Darwin v. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64 , ; Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. 48 Minn. 82 , ; Ikenberry v. New York L. Ins.

f an action from testifying concerning conversations with or admissions of a deceased person relative to the subject matter at issue (G. S. 1913, § 8378), as construed by this court, means that the interest in *333 order to exclude the witness “must be pecuniary, certain, direct and immediate, and not an uncertain, contingent, remote or merely possible interest.” Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. 48 Minn. 82 , ; Havlicek v. Western Bohemian Fr.

See also Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , .

Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. 48 Minn. 82 , .

The first action was entitled, “Joseph C. Bichardson, as guardian, * * * plaintiff,” when the title should have been, “Margaret *362 Buckley, an incompetent person, by Joseph C. Richardson, her guardian.” Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. 48 Minn. 82 , .

He was a stockholder and pecuniarily interested in the result of the action — a direct, and not a remote or speculative, inter■est. The case of Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , , is not in point.

Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 48 Minn. 82 , .

See Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , ; Ætna Ins.

The same is true of Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 48 Minn. 82 , .

Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 48 Minn. 82 , .

Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 48 Minn. 82, 88 , ; Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , .

Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , .

Section 5660, G. S. 1894, is as follows: “It shall not be competent for any party to an action, or interested in the event thereof, to give evidence therein of or concerning any conversation with, or admission of, a deceased or insane party or person, relative to any matter at issue between the parties.” It was held by this court in Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , , and again in Madson v. Madson, 69 Minn. 37 , , that, in order to disqualify a witness who is not a party to the action, his in

Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , .

Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , ; Bliss, Code Pl.

Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 48 Minn. 82 , .

Perine v. Grand Lodge, 48 Minn. 82 , ( 50 N. W. Rep.