Hurley v. Hamilton
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 1937, 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
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Probate Court (Minn. 1937)
- In re Estate of Koffel (Minn. 1928)
- State ex rel. Hilton v. Probate Court (Minn. 1919)
- Hoerr v. Hoerr (Minn. 1917)
- State ex rel. Union National Bank v. Probate Court (Minn. 1908)
- Security Trust Co. v. Black River National Bank (Supreme Court of the United States 1902)
- State ex rel. Matteson v. Probate Court (Minn. 1901)
- Schmidt v. Stark (Minn. 1895)
- Mousseau v. Mousseau (Minn. 1889)
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 constitution expressly limits the jurisdiction of the probate court to the estates of deceased persons and persons under guardianship. It follows that it can have no general jurisdiction in regard to the partition of real estate. The power to make partition, conferred upon that court by Gen. St. 1S78, c. 56, is only given as an incident of settling the estates of deceased persons, and as a part of the final step of administration, viz., the division of the property among the heirs or devisees after the estate has been otherwise fully administered. This chapter provides, in certain cases, for a division or partition and an assignment to each of his share in sev-eralty. In other cases the partition may be dispensed with, and the estate assigned to all in common or undivided shares. But the partition provided for is but a step towards an assignment, and it is to be done while the land is still in the possession of the executor or administrator for the purposes of administration. The statute never contemplated a proceeding in probate court for the purposes of partition after the administration is closed and the lands assigned or turned over to the heirs or devisees. When that is done, the property has passed out of court, and the probate court has no longer any jurisdiction over it. Any proceeding thereafter for partition would not be a step in the administration of the estate of a deceased person, and hence would not be within the jurisdiction of a probate court. See State v. Probate Court, 33 Minn. 94, (22 N. W. Rep. 10;) Cox v. Ingleston, 30 Vt. 258.
Order affirmed.
Berry, J., owing to illness, was absent, and took no part in the decision of this case.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.