allowance claim in Minnesota

1935In Schultz v. Brown, 47 Minn. 255, 257 , 49 N. W. 982 , it was held that where a representative refused to appeal from the allowance of a claim, a person interested in the estate could appeal without stating in the notice of appeal that there had been such a refusal.

1935In Schultz v. Brown, 47 Minn. 255 , 257 , 49 N.W. 982 , it was held that where a representative refused to appeal from the allowance of a claim, a person interested in the estate could appeal without stating in the notice of appeal that there had been such a refusal.

1935In Schultz v. Brown, 47 Minn. 255, 257 , 49 N. W. 982 , it was held that where a representative refused to appeal from the allowance of a claim, a person interested in the estate could appeal without stating in the notice of appeal that there had been such a refusal.

1935In Schultz v. Brown, 47 Minn. 255 , 257 , 49 N.W. 982 , it was held that where a representative refused to appeal from the allowance of a claim, a person interested in the estate could appeal without stating in the notice of appeal that there had been such a refusal.

1935In Rong v. Haller, 106 Minn. 454 , 119 N.W. 405 , 406 , it was held error to dismiss an appeal from a decree of the probate court distributing the residue of an estate to a charitable corporation, on the ground that the notice of appeal had not been served on the corporation, but only on the executor.

1935In Rong v. Haller, 106 Minn. 454 , 119 N.W. 405 , 406 , it was held error to dismiss an appeal from a decree of the probate court distributing the residue of an estate to a charitable corporation, on the ground that the notice of appeal had not been served on the corporation, but only on the executor.

1968Again, in In re Estate of Nelson, 195 Minn. 144, 151 , 262 N. W. 145, 148 , involving the allowance of a claim filed in probate court for a deficiency after a foreclosure sale of secured property, we said: “* * * xhe highest bid received at a public sale is evidence of the market value of the property offered for sale.” We find no reversible error.

1968Again, in In re Estate of Nelson, 195 Minn. 144, 151 , 262 N. W. 145, 148 , involving the allowance of a claim filed in probate court for a deficiency after a foreclosure sale of secured property, we said: “* * * xhe highest bid received at a public sale is evidence of the market value of the property offered for sale.” We find no reversible error.

1959In Owens v. Owens, 207 Minn. 489, 492 , 292 N. W. 89, 91 , it was contended that the order of the probate court allowing a claim was a consent decree and, as such, not appealable, and the court said: “* * * Even if this question were before us on an appeal by the administratrix from an allowance of the claim in question, we would find it difficult, in the light of the record, to hold the order to be a consent decree so as to prevent an appeal.

1959In Owens v. Owens, 207 Minn. 489, 492 , 292 N. W. 89, 91 , it was contended that the order of the probate court allowing a claim was a consent decree and, as such, not appealable, and the court said: “* * * Even if this question were before us on an appeal by the administratrix from an allowance of the claim in question, we would find it difficult, in the light of the record, to hold the order to be a consent decree so as to prevent an appeal.

1944Waiver is "the intentional relinquishment of a known right." Farnum v. Peterson-Biddick Co. 182 Minn. 338 , 341 , 234 N.W. 646 , 648 ; Coppoletti v. Citizens Ins.

1944Waiver is "the intentional relinquishment of a known right." Farnum v. Peterson-Biddick Co. 182 Minn. 338 , 341 , 234 N.W. 646 , 648 ; Coppoletti v. Citizens Ins.

1900Barber v. Bowen, 47 Minn. 118 , 49 N. W. 684 , and cases cited.

1900Barber v. Bowen, 47 Minn. 118 , 49 N. W. 684 , and cases cited.

1900The correctness of this proposition is substantially conceded by the respondent Watson S. Moore, but he claims that it would be inequitable to grant the petition in this case as against him, because he is both a creditor and a stockholder of the corporation; that nearly all of the money to be brought into the common fund by the plaintiff’s action will be contributed by him as a stockholder; that approximately two-thirds of the fund will be distributed to him as a creditor, as an offset pro tanto to his stock liability; and that the plaintiff and his attorney opposed the allowance of his claim

1900The correctness of this proposition is substantially conceded by the respondent Watson S. Moore, but he claims that it would be inequitable to grant the petition in this case as against him, because he is both a creditor and a stockholder of the corporation; that nearly all of the money to be brought into the common fund by the plaintiff’s action will be contributed by him as a stockholder; that approximately two-thirds of the fund will be distributed to him as a creditor, as an offset pro tanto to his stock liability; and that the plaintiff and his attorney opposed the allowance of his claim

1898S. 1894, § 4249); and also that it might be allowed a certain sum for the legal services rendered by its attorney in said matter; and also that it might be allowed another certain sum for the legal services rendered by its attorney in and about an appeal taken by it, as such creditor, from the allowance of the claim of one Joseph Robitshek against the estate, which appeal resulted finally in a rejection of the claim (Robitshek v. Swedish, 68 Minn. 206 , 71 N. W. 7 ).

1898S. 1894, § 4249); and also that it might be allowed a certain sum for the legal services rendered by its attorney in said matter; and also that it might be allowed another certain sum for the legal services rendered by its attorney in and about an appeal taken by it, as such creditor, from the allowance of the claim of one Joseph Robitshek against the estate, which appeal resulted finally in a rejection of the claim (Robitshek v. Swedish, 68 Minn. 206 , 71 N. W. 7 ).

1879State v. Ramsey County Probate Court, 25 Minn. 22 , is cited in support of this!