Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1941

In re Estate of Palm

In re Estate of Palm
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 4, 1941 · STONE, JUSTICE.
297 N.W. 765; 210 Minn. 87 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

James S. Eriksson , for appellant. William P. Harrison , for respondents.

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 1945, 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

In re Estate of Palm

Cases that cite this one

4 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

1 Reported in 297 N.W. 765. In this case (submitted with In re Estate of Palm, 210 Minn. 77,297 N.W. 765) Leonard Eriksson appeals from the judgment surcharging his account as general administrator of the estate of Amelia Palm. She was the wife of August Palm, whose estate is subject matter of the litigation and decision in the other case, and she perished with him in the Fergus Falls cyclone of 1919.

October 7, 1919, appellant collected $2,021.52 under a policy insuring the life of Mr. Palm in which Mrs. Palm was the beneficiary. He admits that he is chargeable with that sum as of that date but now insists, and this is his whole case, that he should be charged in the other estate, that of the husband, rather than in this one, that of the wife. The beneficiaries of the two are identical, the four children of the deceased Palms. It is utterly *Page 88 immaterial whether Eriksson is charged with the amount in the one or the other estate. Therefore, the question is moot, and he has no ground upon which to argue that it was error to make the charge in this estate.

Judgment affirmed.

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