54 Minn. 301 | Minn. | 1893
Upon the evidence presented at the trial, the court directed a verdict for the defendants. On this appeal we are to consider whether the case tended to show a state of facts which would have justified a recovery by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the widow of one James S. Mitchell. The defendants were appointed special administrators of his estate, and they qualified as such. The deceased had left a will, by which he bequeathed his books and china ware to certain persons. Within a day or two after the burial of the plaintiff’s husband, the defendants, who were then such special administrators, came with two men, acting under their direction, to the house where the plaintiff with her children was residing, this being the family homestead. Entering the house with the two men, without force, as it seems, they, as such administrators, demanded from the plaintiff the books and china ware of the deceased. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, they demanded all the books and china ware in the house, which would have included property belonging to the plaintiff, they saying to her that, when it. was legally decided what was hers, she would get it back. The books and china ware were in other rooms, which were locked, and the plaintiff refused to surrender the same. According to the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, the defendants threatened to' break open the doors, and, in the course of the conversation, threatened to strike her if she did not cease talking as she was doing. Although she requested them to leave the house, they remained from about half past 6 o’clock in the evening until after 12 o’clock of that night. The plaintiff testified that she, being in ill health, was frightened and made sick by this conduct of the defendants.
If the facts were as shown by the evidence for the plaintiff, the defendants were guilty of a wrong, and the case should have been submitted to the jury. Under the modern system of procedure, we are not embarrassed by questions as to whether, for the acts complained of and shown, the right of action is technically for trespass or on the case. It is only necessary to consider whether such acts constituted a wrong, as respects the plaintiff, of which the law will take notice. The plaintiff was lawfully in possession of the house. The defendants, as special administrators, rested under the duty of taking into their possession the personal property of the estate, including the books and china bequeathed as above stated. The
Order reversed.
