Minnesota Supreme Court, 1890

St. Paul Trust Co. v. Sargent

St. Paul Trust Co. v. Sargent
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 11, 1890 · Vanderburgh
44 Minn. 449; 47 N.W. 51; 1890 Minn. LEXIS 399 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Williams, Goodenow & Stanton, 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 1943, 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

St. Paul Trust Co. v. Sargent

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

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

Vanderburgh, J.

1. The causes of action set forth in the complaint would have been barred by the statute of limitations on the 29th day of November, 1888, and the 2d day of June, 1888, respectively, if the plaintiff’s testator, Kittson, had not previously died. He died May 10, 1888. The plaintiff was appointed executor June 25,1888; and this action was commenced April 15, 1889. Defendant’s contention is that by virtue.of Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 19, the statute of limitations had run before this action was brought. By section 18 an action may be brought by personal representatives of a creditor within one year from his death, where the cause of action survives, and the statute had not run before his death. Section 19 was added in the Bevision of 1866. The two sections must be construed, if practicable, so as to give effect to both; and we think this may be done. The latter section provides for the contingency of delay in the appointment of administrators or executors, so that, if more than six months intervene between the death of a creditor and the granting of letters, the executor or administrator may have at least six months thereafter in which to bring an action, though in the mean time the year allowed in the previous section had expired. But if, as in this case, the letters are issued within six months of the death of the decedent, the executor would be entitled to the year provided for in the preceding section in which to bring such an action. We think that the sections are not necessarily inconsistent, but, as was held by the trial court, they may stand together. The action was therefore seasonably brought.

2. We are of the opinion also that it does not indisputably appear from the evidence that the indebtedness sued on was cancelled or forgiven by the deceased in his lifetime, or that there was an executed gift to the defendant of the notes evidencing the same by him. The finding of the trial court on that issue cannot be disturbed on this appeal.

Order affirmed.

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