contingent claim in Wisconsin

1957In Davis v. Davis (1909), 137 Wis. 640, 648 , 119 N. W. 334 , it was said: “A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event which may or may not happen and therefore makes it uncertain whether there ever will be a liability. [Cases cited included Austin v. Saveland’s Estate (1890), 77 Wis. 108 , 45 N. W. 955 .]” In Estate of Walter (1924), 183 Wis. 540, 544 , 198 N. W. 375 , the court quoted with approval from Austin v. Saveland’s Estate (1890), 77 Wis. 108 , 45 N. W. 955 , as follows: “ ‘A contingent claim, within the meaning of the statutes, is one where the abso

1957In Davis v. Davis (1909), 137 Wis. 640, 648 , 119 N. W. 334 , it was said: “A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event which may or may not happen and therefore makes it uncertain whether there ever will be a liability. [Cases cited included Austin v. Saveland’s Estate (1890), 77 Wis. 108 , 45 N. W. 955 .]” In Estate of Walter (1924), 183 Wis. 540, 544 , 198 N. W. 375 , the court quoted with approval from Austin v. Saveland’s Estate (1890), 77 Wis. 108 , 45 N. W. 955 , as follows: “ ‘A contingent claim, within the meaning of the statutes, is one where the abso

1942In Mann v. Everts (1885), 64 Wis. 372 , 29 N. W. 209 , it was held that a contingent claim against a decedent’s estate which does not accrue and cannot be proven until after the administration is closed and the estate settled, is not barred because not presented for allowance.

1934Ernst v. Nau, 63 Wis. 134 , 23 N. W. 492 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; Logan v. Dixon, 73 Wis. 533 , 41 N. W. 713 ; Webster v. Estate of Lawson, 73 Wis. 561 , 41 N. W. 710 .” In the three cases last cited, as.in the Ernst Case, the claim involved was a contingent claim.

1975See also: Sec. 313.23, Stats. 1967, providing for allowance and payment of contingent claims filed against an estate when they “shall become absolute.” See *83 also: Davis v. Davis (1909), 137 Wis. 640, 648 , 119 N. W. 334 , this court stating: “A contingent claim is one which may never accrue. ...

1975See also: Sec. 313.23, Stats. 1967, providing for allowance and payment of contingent claims filed against an estate when they “shall become absolute.” See *83 also: Davis v. Davis (1909), 137 Wis. 640, 648 , 119 N. W. 334 , this court stating: “A contingent claim is one which may never accrue. ...

1934Ernst v. Nau, 63 Wis. 134 , 23 N. W. 492 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; Logan v. Dixon, 73 Wis. 533 , 41 N. W. 713 ; Webster v. Estate of Lawson, 73 Wis. 561 , 41 N. W. 710 .” In the three cases last cited, as.in the Ernst Case, the claim involved was a contingent claim.

1934Ernst v. Nau, 63 Wis. 134 , 23 N. W. 492 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; Logan v. Dixon, 73 Wis. 533 , 41 N. W. 713 ; Webster v. Estate of Lawson, 73 Wis. 561 , 41 N. W. 710 .” In the three cases last cited, as.in the Ernst Case, the claim involved was a contingent claim.

1925A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event which may or may not happen and therefore makes it uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” For further discussion of the subject see South Milwaukee Co. v. Murphy, 112 Wis. 614 , 88 N. W. 583 .

1925A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event which may or may not happen and therefore makes it uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” For further discussion of the subject see South Milwaukee Co. v. Murphy, 112 Wis. 614 , 88 N. W. 583 .

1909Sargent's Adm'r v. Adm'r of Kimball's Estate, 37 Vt. 320 ; Austin v. Saveland's Estate, 77 Wis. 108, 45 N. W. 955 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; South Milwaukee Co. v. Murphy, 112 Wis. 614 , 88 N. W. 583 ; Brown’s Ex'r v. Dunn's Estate, 75 Vt. 264 , 55 Atl. 364 .

1890Sargent’s Adm’r v. Kimball’s Adm’r, 37 Vt. 320 ; Edwards v. Roepke, 74 Wis. 575 ; Foster v. Singer, 69 Wis. 392 .

2000Coulson v. Larsen, 94 Wis. 2d 56, 59 , 287 N.W.2d 754 (1980). ¶ 16.

2000Coulson v. Larsen, 94 Wis. 2d 56, 59 , 287 N.W.2d 754 (1980). ¶ 16.

2000Id. at 266 . ¶ 15.

2000Id. at 266 . ¶ 15.

1993Id.

1980“In Geiger v. Calumet County, 18 Wis.2d 151 (1962) the court used both Ainsworth and Fond du Lac in its decision.

1975A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event which may or may not happen and therefore makes it uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” 3 Sec. 287.17, Stats. 1967, providing that no action, other than certain types of action listed, shall be commenced against an executor or administrator of an estate, except “. . . actions in which the county court in probate cannot afford a remedy as adequate, complete, prompt or efficient as the circuit or county court.” 4 Estate of Palmer (1975), 68 Wis. 2d 101 , 227 N. W. 2d 680 . 5 Id. at page 107. 6 Appellants’

1975A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event which may or may not happen and therefore makes it uncertain whether there ever will be a liability.” 3 Sec. 287.17, Stats. 1967, providing that no action, other than certain types of action listed, shall be commenced against an executor or administrator of an estate, except “. . . actions in which the county court in probate cannot afford a remedy as adequate, complete, prompt or efficient as the circuit or county court.” 4 Estate of Palmer (1975), 68 Wis. 2d 101 , 227 N. W. 2d 680 . 5 Id. at page 107. 6 Appellants’

1957In Davis v. Davis (1909), 137 Wis. 640, 648 , 119 N. W. 334 , it was said: “A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event which may or may not happen and therefore makes it uncertain whether there ever will be a liability. [Cases cited included Austin v. Saveland’s Estate (1890), 77 Wis. 108 , 45 N. W. 955 .]” In Estate of Walter (1924), 183 Wis. 540, 544 , 198 N. W. 375 , the court quoted with approval from Austin v. Saveland’s Estate (1890), 77 Wis. 108 , 45 N. W. 955 , as follows: “ ‘A contingent claim, within the meaning of the statutes, is one where the abso

1957In Davis v. Davis (1909), 137 Wis. 640, 648 , 119 N. W. 334 , it was said: “A contingent claim is one where the liability depends upon some future event which may or may not happen and therefore makes it uncertain whether there ever will be a liability. [Cases cited included Austin v. Saveland’s Estate (1890), 77 Wis. 108 , 45 N. W. 955 .]” In Estate of Walter (1924), 183 Wis. 540, 544 , 198 N. W. 375 , the court quoted with approval from Austin v. Saveland’s Estate (1890), 77 Wis. 108 , 45 N. W. 955 , as follows: “ ‘A contingent claim, within the meaning of the statutes, is one where the abso

1942In Mann v. Everts (1885), 64 Wis. 372 , 29 N. W. 209 , it was held that a contingent claim against a decedent’s estate which does not accrue and cannot be proven until after the administration is closed and the estate settled, is not barred because not presented for allowance.

1941In Schmidt v. Grenzow, supra, it is held that even though the debt is not due at the time of administration, it is not a contingent claim within the meaning of sec. 313.22, Stats., relating to the filing of contingent claims.

1934Ernst v. Nau, 63 Wis. 134 , 23 N. W. 492 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; Logan v. Dixon, 73 Wis. 533 , 41 N. W. 713 ; Webster v. Estate of Lawson, 73 Wis. 561 , 41 N. W. 710 .” In the three cases last cited, as.in the Ernst Case, the claim involved was a contingent claim.

1934Ernst v. Nau, 63 Wis. 134 , 23 N. W. 492 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; Logan v. Dixon, 73 Wis. 533 , 41 N. W. 713 ; Webster v. Estate of Lawson, 73 Wis. 561 , 41 N. W. 710 .” In the three cases last cited, as.in the Ernst Case, the claim involved was a contingent claim.

1934Ernst v. Nau, 63 Wis. 134 , 23 N. W. 492 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; Logan v. Dixon, 73 Wis. 533 , 41 N. W. 713 ; Webster v. Estate of Lawson, 73 Wis. 561 , 41 N. W. 710 .” In the three cases last cited, as.in the Ernst Case, the claim involved was a contingent claim.

1934Ernst v. Nau, 63 Wis. 134 , 23 N. W. 492 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; Logan v. Dixon, 73 Wis. 533 , 41 N. W. 713 ; Webster v. Estate of Lawson, 73 Wis. 561 , 41 N. W. 710 .” In the three cases last cited, as.in the Ernst Case, the claim involved was a contingent claim.

1932In Simpe v. Jenks, 195 Wis. 334 , 218 N. W. 375 , which was a suit upon an administrator’s bond, the court said: “In the ordinary course of events, an estate like the instant one could have been liquidated and settled before the expiration of one year.

1932In Simpe v. Jenks, 195 Wis. 334 , 218 N. W. 375 , which was a suit upon an administrator’s bond, the court said: “In the ordinary course of events, an estate like the instant one could have been liquidated and settled before the expiration of one year.

1909Sargent's Adm'r v. Adm'r of Kimball's Estate, 37 Vt. 320 ; Austin v. Saveland's Estate, 77 Wis. 108, 45 N. W. 955 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; South Milwaukee Co. v. Murphy, 112 Wis. 614 , 88 N. W. 583 ; Brown’s Ex'r v. Dunn's Estate, 75 Vt. 264 , 55 Atl. 364 .

1909Sargent's Adm'r v. Adm'r of Kimball's Estate, 37 Vt. 320 ; Austin v. Saveland's Estate, 77 Wis. 108, 45 N. W. 955 ; Mann v. Everts, 64 Wis. 372 , 25 N. W. 209 ; South Milwaukee Co. v. Murphy, 112 Wis. 614 , 88 N. W. 583 ; Brown’s Ex'r v. Dunn's Estate, 75 Vt. 264 , 55 Atl. 364 .

1902The test adopted as to what constitutes a contingent claim, was the rule laid down in Riggin v. Magwire, 15 Wall. 549 .

1902Probably the rule cannot be found more tersely stated than by Justice Bradley in Riggin v. Magwire, 15 Wall. 549 , in speaking of what constituted a contingent claim under the bankrupt act of 1841.

1902Co. v. King, 94 Wis. 439 , but payable only in the future upon a contingency, the happening of an event, to wit, a call regularly made pursuant to the by-laws of the corporation and notice given pursuant thereto; hence a contingent claim.

1902For instance, in Greene v. Dyer, 32 Me. 460 , this expression is used, speaking of contingent claims: “ That class of claims embraces those only, concerning which it is uncertain or contingent whether they will ever become debts.” Evidently the court meant, ever become absolute debts.

1890Sargent’s Adm’r v. Kimball’s Adm’r, 37 Vt. 320 ; Edwards v. Roepke, 74 Wis. 575 ; Foster v. Singer, 69 Wis. 392 .

1889Where a contingent liability exists, and the contingency happens so that the contingent liability becomes an absolute debt which may be proven by the creditor before the settlement of the estate has been closed and the property distributed, there the statute bars the claim if not presented to the commissioners or the county court within the time allowed.” See, also, Webster v. Estate of Lawson, post, p. 561, in which an opinion is now filed; McKeen v. Waldron, 25 Minn. 466 .