Minnesota Supreme Court, 1883

Crosby v. Merriam

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 29, 1883 · Dickinson

31 Minn. 342; 17 N.W. 950; 1883 Minn. LEXIS 95 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

O’Brien & Wilson, for appellant., Harvey Officer, 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 1985, 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

2 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Guardianship of Glenn (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
St. Paul Trust Co. v. Strong (Minn. 1901)

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

Dickinson, J.

It was the duty of the guardian, having money of his ward in his hands, to make the same productive by investment. Having neglected to do so, but retained the money many years, and no reason being shown to excuse the neglect, the guardian was properly charged with interest at the legal rate, after the lapse of a reasonable time (six months) for making investments. Dunscomb v. Dunscomb, 1 John. Ch. 508; Karr’s Adm’r v. Karr, 6 Dana, 3; 1 *343Perry on Trusts, § 468 et seq.; Schouler on Domestic Relations, § § 353, 354. There is nothing in this case excusing the guardian from the duty of investing the money.

Order affirmed.

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