DocketNumber: No. 32,071.
Citation Numbers: 283 N.W. 750, 204 Minn. 513
Judges: STONE, JUSTICE.
Filed Date: 2/17/1939
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/15/2017
Appellant's attack on the judgment is based upon the ground that, although the time fixed for the filing of claims had expired some months before, the probate court permitted the filing of respondent's claim without the application, notice, and showing of cause required by the probate code, L. 1935, c. 72, § 101, 3 Mason Minn. St. 1938 Supp. § 8992-101. That position, we think, is well taken. The statute reads:
"All claims against a decedent arising upon contract, whether due or not due, shall be barred forever unless filed in court within the time limited. For cause shown and upon notice to the representative the court may receive, hear, and allow a claim presented before the final settlement and allowance of the representative's account and within one year after the date of the filing of the order to file claims."
The probate code (L. 1935, c. 72, § 186, 3 Mason Minn. St. 1938 Supp. § 8992-186) has this further demand: *Page 515
"Every application shall be by petition signed and verified by or on behalf of the petitioner."
The statute is something more than procedural. It is, in effect, one of limitation, which cannot be waived by the representative. It has been held here to be for the estate "a rule of property." Estate of Boyd v. Thomas,
In this case filing of the claim was allowed without petition, notice, or showing of cause. Appellant's written objection on that ground seems simply to have been ignored in the probate court. Without more, at the delayed general hearing on claims, this one was allowed. So it is not, as urged for respondent (under the rule of In re Scheffer's Estate,
The judgment must be reversed with directions to enter one disallowing the claim.
So ordered. *Page 516