Garland v. Smith

• Decision Date: 20 November 1894
• Docket Number: No. 6,526.,6,526.
• Citation: 127 Mo. 583,28 S.W. 196
• Parties: GARLAND et al. v. SMITH et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

28 S.W. 196

127 Mo. 583

GARLAND et al. v. SMITH et al.

No. 6,526.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 20, 1894.

APPEAL — AFFIRMANCE — JURISDICTION OF EQUITY — WILL CONTEST.

1. A declaration of trust and a subsequent will, making the same disposition of the property, were attacked on the ground of undue influence. A judgment sustaining the will was affirmed on appeal. Held, that a decree sustaining the trust should also be affirmed, as a reversal would be nugatory.

2. Equity has no jurisdiction to avoid a will on the ground of fraud.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; L. B. Valliant, Judge.

Bill by John T. Garland and others against George Smith and others to cancel a declaration of trust executed to defendants by Mrs. Persis Smith, deceased. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

H. J. Grover and Lee, McKeighan & Priest, for appellants. Judson & Taussig and Hugh Crea, for respondents.

GANTT, P. J.

This is a proceeding in equity to set aside and cancel a declaration of trust made by Persis Smith on September 22, 1886, and also a paper called "Instructions of Mrs. Persis Smith to George Smith, Trustee," executed September 25, 1886, on the ground that at the time of their execution, Mrs. Smith had not sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the said instruments, and the further ground that, at the time, she was under the domination and undue influence of George Smith. This cause was tried and heard in conjunction with another, a statutory contest of the last will and testament of Mrs. Smith, executed October 15, 1890, some 4½ years later. In both cases the judgment of the circuit court was adverse to the plaintiffs and contestants. We have affirmed the judgment in the will case at this delivery. 28 S. W. 191. The parties in each case and the property involved are the same, and the two causes were certified to this court in one record. We are at once confronted with the suggestion that, as the will was executed in 1890, over four years after these trust instruments, it necessarily revoked and annulled the instruments, which were testamentary in their nature, and the will has now, by the judgment of the circuit court and of this court, been finally established; and even should we hold the trust instruments void, no good purpose could be subserved, because it would not affect the status of the property involved. On the other hand, counsel for contestants insist that the will and the trust conveyances are tied together by the fact that the same disposition is made by the will that is made by the trust deed. So that if the trust deed...