TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dent v. Matteson

WILLIAM H. DENT v. LOUISE M. MATTESON and Others

Dent v. Matteson, 75 N.W. 1041 (Minn. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1898
Docket
No. 11,102-(215)
Judges
Buck
Citations
75 N.W. 104173 Minn. 1701898 Minn. LEXIS 775
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Dent v. Matteson Followed — Judgment against Next of • Kin — Contribution. Dent v. Matteson, 70 Minn. 519, adhered to. A judgment which is recovered and entered under G. S. 1894, §§ 5918, 5920, 5923, is proper which provides that the plaintiff herein recover of L. M. M. and G. D. M., and each of them, the sum of $1,072.72 damages and costs.
Summary
Action in the district court for Ramsey county by the receiver of the First National Bank of Decorah, Iowa, against defendants as distributees of the estate of Sumner ■W. Matteson, deceased, to recover the statutory liability which attached to 10 shares of stock in that bank held by Sumner W. Matteson at the time of his death. Judgment was ordered for plaintiff on the pleadings by Willis, J., and defendants Louise M. Matteson and Charles D. Matteson appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Buck

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BUCK, J.

This case was before this court upon a former appeal from an order overruling appellants’ demurrer to the complaint. Dent v. Matteson, 70 Minn. 519 , 73 N. W. 416 . With one exception, the questions now before us were there discussed by counsel, were determined by this court and became the law of the case, which decision we now follow.

The exception relates to a matter of practice, viz. that it was error to enter judgment in the court below in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants Louise M. Matteson and Charles D. Matteson, and each of them, in the sum of $1,000, with interest and costs. But G-. S. 1894, § 5918, provides that an action of this kind may be brought by a creditor against all of the next of kin jointly, or against any one or more of them, where one or more of them have secured a distributive share out of the es *171 tate; and section 5920 provides that when a recovery is had against any one of said next of kin he may maintain an action against all the other relatives of the testator to whom such assets have been paid, jointly, or any one or more of them, for a just and equal contribution proportionately; and by section 5923, in case of judgment against several next of kin of a testator or against several legatees, the payment or satisfaction of the amount recovered against any one of the defendants discharges such defendant, and exonerates him and his property from the judgment. Under these provisions of the statute, the judgment was properly entered.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 11934: 11935: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jack v. Forrest71 F.2d 264 (10th Cir. 1934) · Dissent
  2. Forrest v. Jack294 U.S. 158 (1935)
  3. McCormick v. Smith130 P. 999 (Idaho 1913)

Most recent

  1. Forrest v. Jack294 U.S. 158 (1935)
  2. Jack v. Forrest71 F.2d 264 (10th Cir. 1934) · Dissent
  3. McCormick v. Smith130 P. 999 (Idaho 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Dent v. Matteson, 73 N.W. 416 (Minn. 1897) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list