87 S.W. 44 (Mo.App. 1905), Werckmann v. Taylor

Citation:87 S.W. 44, 112 Mo.App. 365
Opinion Judge:GOODE, J.
Party Name:WERCKMANN et al., Respondents, v. TAYLOR, Appellant
Attorney:Campbell & Thompson for appellant. Wm. H. Clopton for respondents.
Case Date:May 02, 1905
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri

Page 44

87 S.W. 44 (Mo.App. 1905)

112 Mo.App. 365

WERCKMANN et al., Respondents,


TAYLOR, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

May 2, 1905

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Walter B. Douglas, Judge.


Judgment affirmed.

Campbell & Thompson for appellant.

Wm. H. Clopton for respondents.


[112 Mo.App. 366] GOODE, J.

Plaintiffs, Caroline Werckmann and Rose L. Downey, are the children and residuary devisees of George C. Werckmann, deceased. Joseph F. Downey is the husband of Rose L. Downey. Said George C. Werckmann died testate in the city of St. Louis in October, 1899, having appointed the defendant, William H. Taylor, executor. The will devised to his two daughters (plaintiffs) two houses and lots on South Broadway in the city of St. Louis; Numbers 3942, 3944. For two years or more after he qualified as executor, the defendant attended to the collection of the rents of said properties; he states, by the direction and authority of the devisees (plaintiffs); but they say with their consent for the first year and against their will for the second year. He gave a statement to the devisees January 27, 1902, showing that he had collected rent to the amount of $ 2,094.55 and had credited himself with $ 1,004.95, in part disbursed for expenses incurred in caring for the property, paying taxes and other items, and in part retained for his own compensation. This left a balance of $ 1,089.60 due the two daughters as devisees and owners of the premises. His statement also showed he had paid each of said parties $ 544.80 in cash, thus balancing the account. The disputed items of the account

Page 45

are these: Plaintiffs say the defendant charged them with $ 118.42, general and specific taxes on the premises for the year 1900, and deducted that sum from the rents, when in truth he had paid said taxes as executor out of the general assets of the estate and taken credit for the payment in his final settlement as executor. If this was true and the defendant was allowed to deduct the sum paid for taxes from the rent collected, he would receive two credits for the same disbursement. The latter credit would be erroneous, because he paid the taxes out of the assets in his hands as executor and not out of the rents collected as agent for the two daughters. Defendant retained $ 200 out of the rents collected, for which sum he gave himself credit in his statement, designating [112 Mo.App. 367] it as compensation for "fees, advice and services. " The plaintiffs contest this credit, asserting that they never employed the defendant to give advice or render any service except as executor and for which he would be...

To continue reading