Minnesota Supreme Court, 1883

Judd v. Dike

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 4, 1883 · Beery

30 Minn. 380; 15 N.W. 672; 1883 Minn. LEXIS 163 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Geo.,N. Baxter, for appellant., G. W. Batchelder, 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 1923, 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

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Holland Piano Manufacturing Co. v. Smith (Minn. 1923)
Tucker v. Brown (Wash. 1944)
Riordan v. Riordan (Iowa 1933)
Stuhr v. Yakima Valley Bank & Trust Co. (Wash. 1928)
Morton Brick & Tile Co. v. Sodergren (Minn. 1915)
Berryhill v. Peabody (Minn. 1899)
Davis v. Swedish-American National Bank (Minn. 1899)
Jasper v. Hazen (N.D. 1890)
State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. (Minn. 1889)
Swain v. Knapp (Minn. 1884)
Mades v. Miller (D.C. 1894)

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

Beery, J.

1. This is an action for an accounting for property taken and held in trust by defendant for-plaintiff; also, for a partition of a part of such property, and the appointment of a receiver to effect the same. It is, therefore, an equitable action, and properly triable by the court without a jury. If it embraced any distinct issue which defendant desired and was' entitled to submit to a jury, he should have asked for its submission specifically, as he did not. Greenleaf v. Egan, ante, p. 316.

2. The plaintiff was the real party interested in the subject of the action, and therefore entitled to maintain the same in her own name. In fact, she would seem to be the only party who could maintain it, for her alleged trustee (her father) was dead, and it does not appear that any person had succeeded to his trusteeship.

3. The court below finds that, in the course of certain transactions relating'to property held by defendant in trust for plaintiff, defendant received certain bonds — a one-fourth interest in which defendant “held in trust” for plaintiff; that defendant had sold four of the bonds for cash; and that plaintiff was entitled to. her proportionate share of the sums received for them, with interest on the same from the times when such sums were respectively received. The defendant, expressly admitting in his brief that the judgment was entered by a computation of interest according to the finding, insists that the finding was wrong, in that interest should have been computed only from the time when the money received for the bonds was demanded. We do not agree to this. It does not lie in the defendant’s mouth to deny that it was his duty to pay or offer to pay do plaintiff her proportionate share of the money realized from the sale of the bonds as soon as he received it. If he recognized the trust, this duty followed as a matter of inference. If he repudiated the trust, and accordingly appropriated the money to his own use, it was a conversion. In either event he should make good the loss ensuing to plaintiff, by paying her interest from the time when she was entitled to the money.

Judgment affirmed.

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