Minnesota Supreme Court, 1899

McGovern v. McGovern

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 20, 1899 · Canty

75 Minn. 314; 77 N.W. 970; 1899 Minn. LEXIS 473 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

H. L. Schmitt and Lorin Gray, for appellant., W. E. Young, 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 1904, 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

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Mastics v. Kiraly (Cuyahoga County Probate Court 1964)
Perkins v. O'Donald (Fla. 1919)
Wheaton v. Pope (Minn. 1904)
Stevenson v. Stevenson (Ill. 1918)

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

CANTY, J.

In 1882 Thomas McGovern made a last will. He died the next day, and the will was probated. The will provides:

“After paying my lawful debts and funeral expenses, I give, devise and bequeath to my wife, Mary McGovern, the northeast quarter of section six, in township 107, range 25, and all the personal property that I may become possessed of at my death.”

The deceased never owned or had any interest in said northeast quarter, but did own at the time of making his will and at the time of his death the southeast quarter of that section, and resided on the same with his wife and family. He owned no other land. *316The court below held that this will did not dispose of the real estate so owned by the deceased, and awarded it to the heirs at law. Those claiming under the will appeal to this court.

In our opinion, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. The will does not in any form state that the deceased owned the land which the will purported to devise, and if the false description in the will is rejected as surplusage, there is no description left by which the land intended to be devised can be identified. See Schouler, Wills, §§ 268, 269; 1 Jarman, Wills (6th Ed.) 412, et seq.

Judgment affirmed.

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