236 N.W. 206 | Minn. | 1931
1. The decision in the probate court was by a referee appointed pursuant to L. 1929, p. 331, c. 271. By § 5, a referee's "rulings and decisions may be reviewed in the same manner and not otherwise as the rulings and decisions of the court. The decision of the referee in the trial and determination of the whole cause or any *192 issue shall stand as the decision of the court." That statute automatically makes the decision of the referee that of the court and appealable as such. (G. S. 1923 [2 Mason, 1927] § 8983.) There is no provision in the law for a consideration and the confirmation, rejection, or modification of the referee's report or decision by the court. No question has been made as to the constitutionality of such a delegation of judicial power.
2. The notice of appeal is as follows:
"Notice is hereby given, that Sarah R. Gensler, administratrix of the above named estate, being aggrieved by the order of Honorable James G. Kehoe, referee of the probate court of the county of Hennepin, Minnesota, on the 22nd day of March, A.D. 1930, disallowing certain items of expense contained in the supplemental final account, and allowing certain items of interest, in favor of Claimants, hereby appeals therefrom to the District Court of the fourth judicial district in and for said County of Hennepin, Minnesota."
The attack upon the notice is put upon the ground that the attempt is to appeal only from that portion of the decision unfavorable to appellant and so ineffectual within the rule of Capehart v. Logan,
Judgment reversed. *193