contingent claim in Minnesota

1934“A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event, which may or may not happen, and therefore makes it wholly uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 364 , 63 N. W. 1069, 1070 ; Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , 78 N. W. 95 ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , 88 N. W. 439 .

1934“A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event, which may or may not happen, and therefore makes it wholly uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 364 , 63 N. W. 1069, 1070 ; Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , 78 N. W. 95 ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , 88 N. W. 439 .

1934“A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event, which may or may not happen, and therefore makes it wholly uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 364 , 63 N. W. 1069, 1070 ; Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , 78 N. W. 95 ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , 88 N. W. 439 .

1934“A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event, which may or may not happen, and therefore makes it wholly uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 364 , 63 N. W. 1069, 1070 ; Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , 78 N. W. 95 ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , 88 N. W. 439 .

1934“A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event, which may or may not happen, and therefore makes it wholly uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 364 , 63 N. W. 1069, 1070 ; Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , 78 N. W. 95 ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , 88 N. W. 439 .

1934“A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event, which may or may not happen, and therefore makes it wholly uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” Hantzch v. Massolt, 61 Minn. 361, 364 , 63 N. W. 1069, 1070 ; Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , 78 N. W. 95 ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , 88 N. W. 439 .

1934In Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Birkholz, 172 Minn. 231 , 215 N. W. 223, 224 , it Avas held that a contract to pay a wife certain monthly payments for maintenance in lieu of alimony in case a divorce Avas granted was not a contingent claim, hence properly alloAved against the estate of the husband.

1934In Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Birkholz, 172 Minn. 231 , 215 N. W. 223, 224 , it Avas held that a contract to pay a wife certain monthly payments for maintenance in lieu of alimony in case a divorce Avas granted was not a contingent claim, hence properly alloAved against the estate of the husband.

1934The cases of McKeen v. Waldron, 25 Minn. 466 , and Palmer v. Pollock, 26 Minn. 433 , 4 N. W. 1113 , involved the liability of sureties on administrators’ bonds, where, as already noted, liability is con *113 tingent on failure of the principal to account and to pay after liability has been duly ascertained.

1895McKeen v. Waldron, 25 Minn. 466 . 2.

1934In O'Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , 74 N.W. 148 , the syllabus, referring to the action of the probate court in allowing a claim presented after five years had expired since the death of the decedent, states: "The probate court erroneously allowed claims not presented within the five years"; but, because no correction of the error was sought in that court or by appeal to the district court, the allowance was held conclusive.

1934In O'Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , 74 N.W. 148 , the syllabus, referring to the action of the probate court in allowing a claim presented after five years had expired since the death of the decedent, states: "The probate court erroneously allowed claims not presented within the five years"; but, because no correction of the error was sought in that court or by appeal to the district court, the allowance was held conclusive.

1934In Oswald v. Pillsbury, 61 Minn. 520 , 63 N.W. 1072 , it was held that, where a contingent claim did not become absolute until after the time for filing claims had expired, suit could be brought thereon against the administrator, and that, upon presentation of a copy of the judgment against the administrator, the probate court could allow and order the claim paid the same as other claims, the administration of the estate not having been closed.

1934In Oswald v. Pillsbury, 61 Minn. 520 , 63 N.W. 1072 , it was held that, where a contingent claim did not become absolute until after the time for filing claims had expired, suit could be brought thereon against the administrator, and that, upon presentation of a copy of the judgment against the administrator, the probate court could allow and order the claim paid the same as other claims, the administration of the estate not having been closed.

1934In Hunt v. Burns, 90 Minn. 172 , 95 N.W. 1110 , 1111 , a contingent claim became absolute after the time to present claims to the probate court had expired but before the administration of the estate had been finally closed.

1934In Hunt v. Burns, 90 Minn. 172 , 95 N.W. 1110 , 1111 , a contingent claim became absolute after the time to present claims to the probate court had expired but before the administration of the estate had been finally closed.

1934In Ebert v. Whitney, 170 Minn. 102 , 212 N.W. 29 , 51 A.L.R. 711 , it is unqualifiedly held that a contingent claim, which becomes absolute after the time limited by § 8811 for presentation to 18 months, is not barred by either that section or § 8812, but may be presented and allowed before the administration of the estate is closed.

1934In Ebert v. Whitney, 170 Minn. 102 , 212 N.W. 29 , 51 A.L.R. 711 , it is unqualifiedly held that a contingent claim, which becomes absolute after the time limited by § 8811 for presentation to 18 months, is not barred by either that section or § 8812, but may be presented and allowed before the administration of the estate is closed.

1934In Ebert v. Whitney, 170 Minn. 102 , 212 N.W. 29 , 51 A.L.R. 711 , it is unqualifiedly held that a contingent claim, which becomes absolute after the time limited by § 8811 for presentation to 18 months, is not barred by either that section or § 8812, but may be presented and allowed before the administration of the estate is closed.

1934In Ebert v. Whitney, 170 Minn. 102 , 212 N.W. 29 , 51 A.L.R. 711 , it is unqualifiedly held that a contingent claim, which becomes absolute after the time limited by § 8811 for presentation to 18 months, is not barred by either that section or § 8812, but may be presented and allowed before the administration of the estate is closed.

2010Safety, 416 N.W.2d 209 (Minn.App.1987).

2003Danh, 516 N.W.2d at 542 (citing United States v. Marquez, 909 F.2d 738, 741 (2nd Cir.1990); In re Ibarra, 34 Cal.3d 277 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 666 P.2d 980, 986 (1983)).

2003Danh, 516 N.W.2d at 542 (citing United States v. Marquez, 909 F.2d 738, 741 (2nd Cir.1990); In re Ibarra, 34 Cal.3d 277 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 666 P.2d 980, 986 (1983)).

1988As stated in Baldwin : It has been suggested based on a reading of Nichols v. Harsh, 202 Iowa 117 , 209 N.W. 297 (1926), that the test for determining whether a contingent claim will be barred if not filed under section 633.-410 is the practicality of requiring a timely filing.

1988As stated in Baldwin : It has been suggested based on a reading of Nichols v. Harsh, 202 Iowa 117 , 209 N.W. 297 (1926), that the test for determining whether a contingent claim will be barred if not filed under section 633.-410 is the practicality of requiring a timely filing.

1937Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , 78 N. W. 95 ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , 88 N. W. 439 ; Stitz v. Ryan, 192 Minn. 297 , 256 N. W. 173 , 94 A. L.

1937Fitzhugh v. Harrison, 75 Minn. 481 , 78 N. W. 95 ; Jorgenson v. Larson, 85 Minn. 134 , 88 N. W. 439 ; Stitz v. Ryan, 192 Minn. 297 , 256 N. W. 173 , 94 A. L.

1934The cases of McKeen v. Waldron, 25 Minn. 466 , and Palmer v. Pollock, 26 Minn. 433 , 4 N. W. 1113 , involved the liability of sureties on administrators’ bonds, where, as already noted, liability is con *113 tingent on failure of the principal to account and to pay after liability has been duly ascertained.

1934The cases of McKeen v. Waldron, 25 Minn. 466 , and Palmer v. Pollock, 26 Minn. 433 , 4 N. W. 1113 , involved the liability of sureties on administrators’ bonds, where, as already noted, liability is con *113 tingent on failure of the principal to account and to pay after liability has been duly ascertained.

1896To support this argument, appellants invoke the principle involved in such cases as State v. Norton, 59 Minn. 424 , 61 N. W. 458 , where it is held that a party cannot prevent the running of the statute of limitations against his cause of action by failing to perform a condition precedent which it is in his power to perform.

1896To support this argument, appellants invoke the principle involved in such cases as State v. Norton, 59 Minn. 424 , 61 N. W. 458 , where it is held that a party cannot prevent the running of the statute of limitations against his cause of action by failing to perform a condition precedent which it is in his power to perform.

1896Co. v. Lindeke, supra, p. 209, 68 N. W. 974 , it was held that a claim presented by a corporation for an amount due on account of stock shares, the subscriber having died after one instalment had been paid, was a contingent claim, not provable in the course of administration, because, according to the articles of incorporation, the par value of the stock shares was made payable in instalments when called for by the board of directors, and the instalment in question was not called for until after the time fixed for the presentation of claims had passed.

1895Sargent v. Kimball, 37 Vt. 320 .