Bennett v. Shaul
| Decision Date | 10 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 46437,No. 1,46437,1 |
| Parties | Anna C. BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. Gladys SHAUL, Executrix of Estate of Christina Brooks, Deceased, Defendant- Appellant, Mearl R. Cummings and Margaret Cummings, His Wife, and A. L. Krodinger, Defendants-Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Louis L. Hicks, Clayton, for Gladys Shaul, Executrix of Estate of Christina Brooks, Deceased.
Dubail, Judge & Kilker, Charles R. Judge, St. Louis, for respondent, Mearl R. Cummings and Margaret Cummings.
This is a suit to quiet title to real estate located in St. Louis County, Missouri, known by street number as 2104-2106 Yale Avenue, Maplewood, Missouri. The trial court decreed Mearl R. Cummings and Margaret Cummings, his wife, to be the owners in fee of the property subject to a deed of trust wherein A. L. Krodinger was named as trustee. Christina Brooks, who claimed the property on the theory of a resulting trust, which claim was denied by the court's judgment, filed a notice of appeal after her motion for new trial was overruled. After an appeal was taken, Christina Brooks died and Gladys Shaul, executrix of the estate of Christina Brooks, was substituted as a party.
The record shows that on June 4, 1956, Anna C. Bennett filed a suit in a Magistrate Court against Christina Brooks for rent and possession of the property involved in the case on this appeal. The defendant in that case, Christina Brooks, through her attorney filed an affidavit in the Magistrate Court alleging that she was the owner of the title and that the court was without jurisdiction to try the case and asked that it be transferred to the Circuit Court. The Magistrate Court promptly transferred the case.
On July 27, 1956, Christina Brooks filed in the Circuit Court what was designated as an answer and cross bill wherein she named Robert Cummings and A. L. Krodinger as parties-defendants. In this cross bill, Christina Brooks stated that William Bennett and his wife, Anna, held the bare legal title to the property but that she was the equitable and lawful owner because she had paid Bennett $1,000 to purchase the property for her but that Bennett caused the legal title to be vested in the name of Bennett and his wife; that she had been in possession of the property for many years and had paid for all repairs and all taxes thereon. Christina Brooks asked the court to enter a decree vesting title in her name.
Mearl R. Cummings, named in the cross bill of Christina Brooks as Robert Cummings, and his wife Margaret entered their appearance and filed an answer and cross bill to the cross bill filed by Christina Brooks. In the answer, the Cummings stated that they had acquired the property by deed on July 11, 1956. They stated that Anna Bennett had conveyed title to them, The Cummings, in the cross bill, asked the court to try and determine title to the property and to enter a decree in their favor.
George R. Wolf represented Christina Brooks at the trial of the case and W. Donald Dubail represented the Cummings. The case was tried on what the attorneys considered the two cross bills. Note what occurred while Mr. Wolf was making his statement to the court:
'The Court: Yes, but what happened to the interest of Anna C. Bennett in this matter.
The case, transferred from the Magistrate Court, was dismissed by agreement of all parties. Christina Brooks, a defendant in the Magistrate Court, by the filing of a cross bill became for all practical purposes the plaintiff in the case tried in the Circuit Court.
The evidence as to title being in the Cummings shows that it was stipulated that in 1942 Joseph Licavoli Arnold conveyed the property in dispute to William Bennett and his wife Anna; that on July 11, 1956, Anna C. Bennett, a single person and widow of William Bennett, conveyed the property to Mearl R. Cummings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Moreau
...petition for custody and requesting relief from the trial court, Father voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction. See Bennett v. Shaul, 318 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo.1958); Manning v. Fedotin, 64 S.W.3d 841, 848 (Mo.App.2002). The same is true for the Councils because they voluntarily intervened......
-
State ex rel. Shaul v. Jones, 5
...of a resulting trust. Her claim was denied and she appealed. The trial court's decree and judgment was affirmed on appeal. Bennett v. Shaul et al., Mo., 318 S.W.2d 307. The case now before respondent was brought by Christina Brooks against Mearl R. Cummings and Margaret Cummings, his wife. ......
-
Central Wholesale Distributors, A Div. of Topeka Lumber, Inc. v. Day
...submission to the court's jurisdiction. Central urges this court to follow and apply the general rule announced in Bennett v. Shaul, 318 S.W.2d 307 (Mo.1958), an action for rent and possession of real property, which stated at 309, citing from 21 C.J.S. Courts 85c, p. " 'It is well establis......
-
Germanese v. Champlin
...in process or even absence of process may be cured by the express or implied consent of the party to the litigation. Bennett v. Shaul, 318 S.W.2d 307, 309(4) (Mo.1958). With the exception of an objection to the jurisdiction over the subject matter, if a party takes any action in a case whic......