Minnesota Supreme Court, 1944

In re Estate of Williams

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided March 17, 1944 · PER CURIAM.

13 N.W.2d 736; 217 Minn. 634 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Stone, Manthey Carey , for appellant. Charles T. Wangensteen , 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 1988, 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.

Radabaugh v. Just (Minn. 1947)
Marriage of Iverson v. Iverson (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
Marriage of Amatuzio v. Amatuzio (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
Donarski v. Lardy (Minn. 1958)
Coughlin v. Town of Rosemount (Minn. 1949)
In re Trust Created by Will of Enger (Minn. 1948)
Kiebach v. Kiebach (Minn. 1948)
Leraan v. Aftenro Society (Minn. 1948)
Belluci v. Marra (Minn. 1944)

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 18 N.W.2d 786. Lucian Edward Williams, residing in Cook county, Illinois, died testate. He named defendant executor in his will. The will was there probated, and defendant was appointed executor. The deceased owned a share in a Biwabik mine in this state, and an ancillary proceeding to probate the will in the probate court of St. Louis county was instituted in which defendant was appointed executor, over the objections of plaintiffs, who appealed to the district court of St. Louis county. That court made findings of fact and conclusions of law that defendant was not a competent and suitable person to act as executor of the estate. Defendant moved in the alternative for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law or a new trial. The motion was denied, and defendant brought this appeal. Respondents make the point that no appeal lies from the order insofar as it refused to amend the findings, and that insofar as the order denied a new trial it must stand, because no ground for a new trial was stated as prescribed by Minn. St. 1941, § 547.01 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 9825); Julius v. Lenz, 212 Minn. 201,3 N.W.2d 10; Hoyt v. Kittson County State Bank, 180 Minn. 93,230 N.W. 269.

Order affirmed.

*Page 1

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