Minnesota Supreme Court, 1874

Commercial Bank v. Slater

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 24, 1874 · Berry

21 Minn. 174; 1874 Minn. LEXIS 39 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

JR. B. Galusha and I. V. JD. Heard, for appellant., H. J. Horn and Davis & O'Brien, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1891, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Huebner v. Sesseman (Neb. 1893)
Hill v. Townley (Minn. 1891)
Hartman v. Fishbeck (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin 1883)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Berry, J.

The complaint in this action presents substantially the same state of facts presented in the other case *175between the same parties, decided at this term {ante p. 172,) -except that in this case, the plaintiff, instead of applying to the probate court for the allowance of its claim, has brought this suit against the administrator, alleging that there were never any assets of Heylin’s estate in Pennsylvania, out of which its judgment could be collected, but that said estate in Minnesota, now in the hands or under the control of the •defendant, is solvent and sufficient to pay all the debts of said estate ; but that defendant has refused to pay or recognize said judgment, though requested, etc.

The defendant’s general demurrer to the complaint, was, in our opinion, properly upheld. The remedy sought in this action being controlled by the lex fori, the plaintiff, not having- exhibited its claim to the commissioners, was “ forever barred from recovering ” the same, (in this state at any rate,) by § 14, ch. 53, Gen. Stat.

Section 50 of the same chapter further enacts that ‘‘ in no other case, except such as are expressly provided for in this chapter, shall any action be commenced or prosecuted against an executor or administrator.” The plaintiff does not bring itself within any case so expressly provided for, nor claim to do so, as far as we can discover. The demurrer being supported by both of these provisions of statute, the order sustaining the same is affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.