235 N.W. 29 | Minn. | 1931
In his argument here plaintiff's counsel states that the question presented is whether plaintiff's action is barred by the order settling his final account.
The probate court is a court of record and of superior jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons and persons under guardianship. State constitution, art. 6, § 7. Its orders and judgments are not subject to collateral attack. Cross v. White,
The order settling the account operates as an account stated between the guardian and the ward. Whitfield v. Burrell,
Where claims for services rendered by the guardian to his ward or by the ward to the guardian are omitted from the final account, the settlement of the account is nevertheless final and not subject to collateral attack. Ackermann v. Haumueller,
A guardian in his final account may take credit for and be allowed compensation for services rendered to the ward prior to his appointment as guardian as well as during the guardianship. In re Besondy,
A final settlement of a guardian's account cannot be attacked on the ground that no allowance was made to the guardian for his services. Reed v. Lane,
While the guardianship proceeding and the administration of the ward's estate after his death were in the same probate court, the claim here presented in the matter of the estate of the deceased ward is nevertheless a collateral attack upon the order settling the guardian's final account. If the verdict here shall stand, we will have one judgment fixing the compensation of the guardian for his services at $50, and another judgment fixing his compensation at $1,500 additional. The guardian had funds in his hands. He should have presented his claim for services in his final account.
By motion to reopen or vacate the order settling the guardian's account, or other direct attack, that order could be reopened or vacated for fraud or mistake. It was not otherwise subject to attack. An offer to prove an understanding or agreement by the parties, that plaintiff's claim need not be included in the guardian's account, was properly excluded. Such proof would be permissible only in a direct attack on the order.
The case of Matthews v. Mires,
Order affirmed.