Murphy v. Carron
Decision Date | 05 May 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 59167,59167 |
Citation | 536 S.W.2d 30 |
Parties | Lucille V. MURPHY, Respondent, v. Cecelia CARRON and Paul Carron, Appellants. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John A. Schneider, Hillsboro, for appellants.
Mrs. Alice L. C. Kramer, Brunson, Hollingsworth & Associates, Hillsboro, for respondent.
In this court-tried case, Lucille V. Murphy seeks to recover money which she asserts was loaned by her to Cecelia Carron and Paul Carron. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $9,100. The Carrons appealed to the St. Louis District of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. The cause was transferred here by order of this Court. We decide the cause 'the same as on original appeal.' Mo.Const., Art. V, § 10.
We ordered the transfer of this case and two other cases (In re Novak, Mo., 536 S.W.2d 33; and Roth v. Flieg, Mo., 536 S.W.2d 39) primarily to consider and put to rest as soon as possible questions which have arisen about the scope of review in court-tried civil cases since the revision of our Rule 73.01, effective January 1, 1975.
Before its revision, Rule 73.01(d) provided, in part, that on appeal of a case tried by the court without a jury:
(Emphasis added.)
In the revision, the italicized portion of the rule was deleted.
Rule 73.01, as revised, provides in subdivision 3, in part, that on appeal of a case tried by the court without a jury:
'(a) The court shall review the case upon both the law and the evidence as in suits of an equitable nature.
'(b) Due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to have judged the credibility of witnesses.'
It is suggested, on the one hand, that by deletion of the words italicized above, the Court abandoned the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review and adopted a 'de novo' standard of review. It is suggested, on the other hand, that Rule 73.01 still requires that review be 'as in suits of an equitable nature' and that the 'clearly erroneous' standard is an essential part of the scope of review of suits of an equitable nature.
We must recognize that the law in Missouri as to the scope of appellate review of suits of an equitable nature is in a state of confusion, largely as a result of an attempted use of de novo and clearly erroneous in the same standard of review. Those interested will find the cases in Vol. 3A, Missouri Digest, Appeal and Error, k1009(1) to (4). It is essential now that the Bench and Bar of Missouri be given some sense of direction on the question.
Accordingly, appellate 'review * * * as in suits of an equitable nature,' as found in Rule 73.01, is construed to mean that the decree or judgment of the trial court wil be sustained by the appellate court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. Appellate courts should exercise the power to set aside a decree or judgment on the ground that it is 'against the weight of the evidence' with caution and with a firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong. The use of the words de novo and clearly erroneous is no longer appropriate in appellate review of cases under Rule 73.01.
On November 18, 1970, Lucille V. Murphy and Cecelia Carron went to the Tower Grove Savings and Loan Association. Lucille V. Murphy drew out $10,000 in the form of a cashier's check and signed it over to Cecelia Carron. Cecelia Carron endorsed the check and deposited it in a joint account held in the Pevely bank with her husband Paul Carron. The money was expended through two payments to building contractor Ralph Williams for remodeling the Carron home in Pevely.
Was the transaction, in legal effect, a loan or a gift?
In the case of In re DeGheest's Estate, 362 Mo. 634, 646, 243 S.W.2d 83, 90 (1951), this Court defined a 'loan' as 'the delivery of a sum of money to another under a contract to return at some future time an equivalent amount with or without an additional sum agreed upon for its use; and if such be the intent of the parties the transaction will be deemed a loan regardless of its form.'
The evidence is conflicting. The trial court considered the transaction a loan and not a gift. We have reviewed the evidence and defer to the findings and conclusion of the trial court.
Was the loan an installment loan or a demand loan?
Cecelia Carron, after testifying that Lucille V. Murphy actually gave her the check at a restaurant where they went to eat after they left the Tower Grove Savings and Loan Association, further testified as follows:
We are of the opinion this was a demand loan...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cruzan by Cruzan v. Harmon
...art. V, § 3. Because we find that the trial court erroneously declared the law, we reverse. I. We review this case under Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The judgment of the trial court "will be sustained ... unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless ......
-
Parmley v. Missouri Dental Bd.
...Dental Board to issue him a license. The judgment below to dismiss appellant's Complaint is supported by substantial evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc Appellant Parmley next maintains his First Amendment rights have been curtailed impermissibly by Missouri statute, in ......
-
State v. Higgins
...in that frame of reference determine whether the trial court's finding of voluntariness is supported by substantial evidence. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc At the outset we recognize that once a defendant has challenged the admissibility of a statement or confession made whil......
-
State ex rel. Webster v. Missouri Resource Recovery, Inc.
...our resolution of various issues. STANDARD OF REVIEW Our review of this court-tried case is governed by Rule 73.01(c) and Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). Thus we will sustain the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is agains......
-
A Contractual Dilemma: Where Arbitration Agreements and Delegation Provisions Collide.
...States v. Winstar Corp, 85 WASH. U. L. REV. 1373, 1376 n.16 (2008). (74.) Theroff, 591 S.W.3d at 439. (75.) Id. (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. 1976) (en (76.) Id. at 436. (77.) Id. at 436-37. (78.) Id. (79.) Id. at 437. (80.) Id. at 438. The Court made this inference despi......