Allowing claim in Iowa

1912The plaintiffs were not entitled to have it set aside and to have a retrial as to the validity of the claim as a matter of right, but were required to show some valid ground for setting it aside (see Dessiant v. Foster, 72 Iowa, 639 ; Kows v. Mowery, 57 Iowa, 20 ; Cowins v. Tool, 36 Iowa, 82 ), and that they have failed to do.” On petition for rehearing it was said: “The distinction between an action in equity to set aside an order entered by the probate court and an application filed in that court asking that an allowance of a claim be set aside because improvidently made seems to be lost sig

1899The plaintiffs were not entitled to have it set aside and to have a retrial as to the validity of the claim as a matter of right, but were required to show some valid ground for setting it aside (see Dessaint v. Foster, 72 Iowa, 639 ; Kows v. Mowery, 57 Iowa, 20 ; C owins v. Tool, 36 Iowa, 82 ), and that they have failed to do.

1912The plaintiffs were not entitled to have it set aside and to have a retrial as to the validity of the claim as a matter of right, but were required to show some valid ground for setting it aside (see Dessiant v. Foster, 72 Iowa, 639 ; Kows v. Mowery, 57 Iowa, 20 ; Cowins v. Tool, 36 Iowa, 82 ), and that they have failed to do.” On petition for rehearing it was said: “The distinction between an action in equity to set aside an order entered by the probate court and an application filed in that court asking that an allowance of a claim be set aside because improvidently made seems to be lost sig

1899The plaintiffs were not entitled to have it set aside and to have a retrial as to the validity of the claim as a matter of right, but were required to show some valid ground for setting it aside (see Dessaint v. Foster, 72 Iowa, 639 ; Kows v. Mowery, 57 Iowa, 20 ; C owins v. Tool, 36 Iowa, 82 ), and that they have failed to do.

1912The plaintiffs were not entitled to have it set aside and to have a retrial as to the validity of the claim as a matter of right, but were required to show some valid ground for setting it aside (see Dessiant v. Foster, 72 Iowa, 639 ; Kows v. Mowery, 57 Iowa, 20 ; Cowins v. Tool, 36 Iowa, 82 ), and that they have failed to do.” On petition for rehearing it was said: “The distinction between an action in equity to set aside an order entered by the probate court and an application filed in that court asking that an allowance of a claim be set aside because improvidently made seems to be lost sig

1899The plaintiffs were not entitled to have it set aside and to have a retrial as to the validity of the claim as a matter of right, but were required to show some valid ground for setting it aside (see Dessaint v. Foster, 72 Iowa, 639 ; Kows v. Mowery, 57 Iowa, 20 ; C owins v. Tool, 36 Iowa, 82 ), and that they have failed to do.

1943This may be a good reason for compelling the claimant to amend the statement of his claim, *1299 but tbe defect did not, in onr opinion, affect tbe jurisdiction of the court. * * * “If the decision of the court in allowing the claim was erroneous, the error could have been corrected on appeal; and' we know of no other way to attack it, unless it be by a proceeding based upon fraud.” Numerous other cases in line, generally, with McLeary v. Doran, are cited in In re Estate of Nicholson, 230 Iowa 1191, 1208 , 300 N. W. 332 .

1943This may be a good reason for compelling the claimant to amend the statement of his claim, *1299 but tbe defect did not, in onr opinion, affect tbe jurisdiction of the court. * * * “If the decision of the court in allowing the claim was erroneous, the error could have been corrected on appeal; and' we know of no other way to attack it, unless it be by a proceeding based upon fraud.” Numerous other cases in line, generally, with McLeary v. Doran, are cited in In re Estate of Nicholson, 230 Iowa 1191, 1208 , 300 N. W. 332 .

1921Hendron v. Kinner, 110 Iowa 544 , involved an appeal from an order of the court allowing a claim against decedent’s estate.

1892In McLeary v. Doran, supra, in speaking of section 2474 of the Code, it is said: ‘ ‘No authority is found therein for a proceeding to vacate an order of the court allowing a claim upon a hearing, unless it be made to appear that there was fraud or collusion between the administrator and the claimant.” While it is true that the heirs are not required to be made parties to proceedings for the approval or disap proval of claims, yet it is certainly true that where they have an interest in the result, as these appellees have, and it is alleged that the administrator is failing or has* failed to ma