Waterman v. Millard
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 1906, 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.
- McAlpine v. Kratka (Minn. 1906)
- Balch v. Hooper (Minn. 1884)
- Forepaugh v. Hoffman (Minn. 1877)
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
Action upon an administrator’s bond to recover the remainder of a claim due the plaintiff, as allowed by the commissioners, part of the claim having been paid by the administrator after it was allowed by the commissioners. At the May term, 1875, of the district court the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court granted the motion on the ground that the complaint does not show that the probate court had made any order or decree of distribution, or for payment of the debts, and judgment was ■entered accordingly.
No such order or decree is set up in the complaint, and for this reason it is, according to the decision in Wood v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 494, fatally defective. By that case, it
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.