In re the Estate of Hardy
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 1959, 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
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- State ex rel. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Probate Court (Minn. 1921)
- Gabel v. Ferodowill (Minn. 1959)
- In re Dugan (Mo. Ct. App. 1957)
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Davis (Mo. Ct. App. 1957)
- Estate of Bily (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)
- Persky v. Greever (Tex. App. 1947)
- Smaltz Glove Co. v. Upton (Wash. 1939)
- Wilkinson v. Nowers (Ill. App. Ct. 1920)
- Bell v. Davis (Okla. 1914)
- Burmeister v. Gust (Minn. 1912)
- Edgerly v. Alexander (Minn. 1900)
- In re Critchell Estate (Mich. 1960)
- Worthen v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (N.H. 1915)
- Tuttle v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1912)
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
The probate court of Freeborn county duly appointed the respondent administratrix of the estate of Frank Hardy, and, having duly qualified, she, as administratrix, brought an action under
Gen. St. 1878, c. 49, § 14, provides that an appeal from such an order “can only be taken by a party aggrieved.” This does not include a mere debtor of the estate. It refers to one who, as heir, devisee, legatee, or creditor, has what may be called a legal interest in the assets of the estate, and their due administration. A mere debtor of a decedent’s estate may have a personal preference as to who shall be appointed administrator, but in law that is a question in which he has no interest, and therefore its determination in one way or another cannot aggrieve him in any legal sense. His simple duty is to pay his debt to the administrator, whoever he may be. How the estate is administered, or by whom, is nothing to him. The case of one against whom an administrator has a right of .action under the statute cited cannot stand upon any different footing. If for any reason the appointment of an administrator is invalid, so that he is not an administrator, that fact can be taken advantage of in any suit which he may assume to bring in that character.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.