The Saint Paul globe., 1905-01-18

Juu9c DuHn OeClOeS IL ffdS
jurisdiction Over DR.. APP
pieby's Action
No light upon the merits of the case
was shed yesterday by the long-ex-
pected decision of Judge Bum, in the
district court action brought by DR.. T.
E. w. ". Appleby, one of the exec
utors of his wife, Cornelia Wilder APP
pleby, against V. M. Hawkins, other
executors of the estate, and a long array
of additional defendants. Judge Bum
decides that jurisdiction in the matter
belongs exclusively to the probate
court.
The Wilder wills were made in turn
by Amherst H. Wilder, the pioneer
contractor and capitalist, who left sew
eral millions and a house at Summit
and Selby avenues to his widow, Fan
ny Wilder, and their only child Corne-
liza; by this daughter, who married DR..
Appleby after he had entered into an
agreement that his claims against her
estate, if she died, would be limited to
an annuity of $4,000 so long as he re-
manned unmarried; and by the widow,
Fanny Wilder, who survived her hus-
band and daughter.
Each of the three wills provided that
the bulk of the property, excepting the
house, was ultimately to pass to cor
poration that would maintain a
wilder charity for the benefit of ''the
worthy poor of st. Paul."
Various attacks were made unsuc-
cessfully upon the validity of the wills,
one argument being that certain rela-
tives should have part of the property,
and another that the charity bequest
was invalid under Minnesota law.
Three Questions Raised
The current and last suit, still unde-
cided, was brought by DR.. Appleby to
determine, as Judge Bum points out
three things:
Was DR.. Appleby entitled to the use
of the Summit avenue house as long
as he remained unmarried, although,
at the time of her death, his wife did
not own the property?
Was he entitled to any benefit from
the bequest of $1,000 to be expended
annually for paying taxes and assess
the provision of no effect because Mrs
Appleby did not own the homestead
when she died?
Whether the gift for charity was q
trust and therefore void, or an absolute
gift and valid?
But Judge Bum does not undertake
to decide these questions. He con-
fines his decision to the point whether
the district court or the probate court
iI1r,i icdi Rxr
ing in favor of the probate court he
transfers to Judge Bazille of that court
the burden of solving the triple
enigma.
Hence the case must now go to the
probate court, from which appeal may
be taken if desired to the district
court and upwards through the higher
tribunals.
Judge Bunn's Opinion
The will has been probated and the es-
tate, is still in process of administration
in the probate court of this county. No
final decree has been made.
tbe comniaint aSks the 1acisian an1 in
structions of this court, as I have stated
them, and the fact that the estate is still
IN process OF administration in the pro
bate court. the first, the most important
and perhaps the only question to be de-
cided is whether this court has Jurfsdic-
ton of the subject matter of this action.
Plaintiffs contention is that the juriS-
d1ction of the probate court in respect Of
the construction Of wills, at least where
equitable questions are involved, such as
trusts, is not exclusive, but that this court
has concurrent jurisdiction in such cases.
The constitution of this state, article
6, section T. gives the probate court juris-
diction over the estates of deceased per-
sons and persons under guardianship. 1t
has been held in several cases that this
jurisdiction is exclusive.
Assuming from the language quoted
case, that the district court, ''in a proper
| case upon proper showing, upon
the filing of a sufficient bill in equity
| may have concurrent jurisdiction with the
probate court to conStrue a will, the
question is: What is proper case, what
is sufficient showing to give the court
such jurisdiction?
can think of but one satisfactory and
| logical answer to this question. Where
the probate court has not ample power to
determine, where it appears there is no
| adequate remedy in the probate court,
where it is shown that compelling resort
plaintiff of some right or remedy, the
district court has jurisdiction But where
ample, where adequate relief can be had
there where there is no showing of pos
sible loss or damageSto plaintiff by deny
ing his right to resort to equity, the dis
| trict court has no jurisdiction.
| There is no help ON this question from
| the supreme court of this state, except in
| so lar as the cases nave quoted from
| Indicate the extent and character of the
| jurisdiction of probate courts and courts
of equity in this state. There is much
| real or apparent conflict in the decisions
| of other states I think the rule 1 have
| laid down needs no further authority
! to support it. 1t is reasonable logical
and in accord with exclusive character
| of the jurisdiction of the probate court,
and in harmony with the general princi-
pies of equity Jurisprudence.
Plaintiff has an adequate remedy in a
court provided by the constitution for the
! adjudication of ali questions arising dur
| ing the settlement and distribution of the
estate of the deceased. An appeal lies to
the district court from the judgment of
| that tribunal and to the supreme court
from the district court
Courts of equity came into existence to
afford relief in cases where courts of law
! were powerleSs to do so, and it has ever
| been a cardinal rule of equity jurisdiction
1 that it must appear that the complainant
| had no adequate remedy in the law
courts. Why should not the same rule be
applied when plaintiff has an adequate
remedy in court of probate? What rea-
son is there to adopt in this state the rule
| that equity will take jurisdiction where
| equitable questions, especially concerning
| trusts, are involved, when the probate
court has ample power to determine the
same questions?
| mo reasons have been suggested to me
and / see none On the contrary to hold
| that the district and probate courts have
too,, ,~ra,,f ,-sersra 7.1k:z