Barrett v. Ball
Decision Date | 31 March 1903 |
Citation | 101 Mo. App. 288,73 S.W. 865 |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | BARRETT v. BALL.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
2. Defendant represented plaintiff as attorney in obtaining administration on the estate of his son, and also represented the administrator in certain suits for the recovery of assets. Plaintiff was a man approaching 70 years of age, impaired in sight, in feeble condition, ignorant, and of shiftless habits. As the father of the son, he was entitled to the son's entire estate in Tennessee, together with one-sixth of the son's estate in Missouri, all of which he assigned to defendant for $75. Defendant made two trips to Tennessee, where he collected $573.80 on account of such estate, and also received from the administrator in Missouri, as the father's share, $136 in addition. Held, that the assignment should be set aside, and that defendant should be required to account for the amount received, less a reasonable credit for his professional services and expenses in collecting the fund.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; E. M. Hughes, Judge.
Action by John M. Barrett against Claude R. Ball, to set aside an assignment of a distributive share in an estate. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
In September, 1898, plaintiff's minor son, Arthur Barrett, died in the state of New York; and his remains, together with his money and jewelry, in value about $1,500, were shipped back to Montgomery county, Mo. In addition to the above property, the deceased was entitled to $1,093 for services under a contract of employment with E. S. Gardner & Son, of Sumner county, Tenn. T. J. Powell, as public administrator of Montgomery county, took charge of the property sent to Missouri in September, 1898; and later E. S. Gardner was appointed his administrator, and took charge of the estate of the deceased in Tennessee. Under the laws of Tennessee, plaintiff inherited all of the property of the deceased minor son in that state. Under the laws of Missouri, the estate in course of administration in the hands of the public administrator was divisible into six parts, of which plaintiff, as father of the deceased, was entitled to one portion. The defendant acted as attorney for plaintiff and one of the other heirs in applying for an administrator in the state of Missouri, and in having the letters of administration by the public administrator taken out, and thereafter defendant was retained by the public administrator as attorney in the course of the administration. On September 9, 1899, plaintiff executed and delivered to defendant an instrument in the form following:
At the time of the execution of this assignment the defendant paid the plaintiff therefor the sum of $75, and later, in turn, defendant purchased the interests of other heirs of the estate of Arthur Barrett, paying for one $75, and for others $140 each. March 28, 1900, plaintiff executed and delivered to defendant the following additional instruments:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morris v. Hanssen, 32208.
...fraudulent. Linneman v. Henry, 291 S.W. 109; Morton v. Forsell, 249 Mo. 409, 155 S.W. 765; Davis v. Kline, 96 Mo. 408; Barrett v. Ball, 101 Mo. App. 288; Beagles v. Robertson, 137 Mo. App. 306; Yeaman v. James, 27 Kan. 195; Matthew v. Robinson, 7 Kan. App. 118; Brennan v. Coakley, 243 Mass.......
-
Robinson v. Field, 35168.
... ... Bybee v. S'Renco, 291 S.W. 458; Barrett v. Ball, 73 S.W. 865, 101 Mo. App. 288. (a) Parol evidence was admissible to show the real consideration for the deeds. Johnson v. Bank of Poplar ... ...
-
State v. January, 38973.
... ... In re Conrad, 340 Mo. 582, 598[3], 105 S.W. 2d 1, 10 [5, 6]; Morton v. Forsee, 249 Mo. 409, 155 S.W. 765, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 197; Barrett v. Ball, 101 Mo. App. 288, 73 S.W. 865; 7 C.J.S., p. 973; Secs. 133, 139. Although the agent effecting a collection be entitled to a commission, the ... ...
-
Morris v. Hanssen
...Guinan v. Donnell, 201 Mo. 204; Addison v. Cope, 234 S.W. 214; Linneman v. Henry, 291 S.W. 112; Bybee v. S'renco, 291 S.W. 462; Barrett v. Ball, 101 Mo.App. 310; Yeoman v. Morris, 11 P.2d 683; Beedle Crane, 91 Mich. 431. (3) The relation of husband and wife is one of trust and confidence, a......