Buder v. Fiske, 13595.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 13595.,13595. |
| Citation | 177 F.2d 907 |
| Parties | BUDER et al. v. FISKE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Harry C. Blanton, Sekeston, Mo., (G. A. Buder, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., was with him on the brief), for appellants.
Jesse T. Friday, St. Louis, Mo., (E. J. Doerner, Tulsa, Okl., was with him on the brief), for appellees Johanna F. Fiske, Amanda F. Wheeler, Otto B. Franz, Henrietta A. Holdoway, Adelaide M. Zimmerman and Ehrhardt W. Franz.
Samuel H. Liberman, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees Mississippi Valley Trust Company, administrator c. t. a. of the estates of Ernst H. Franz and Walter G. Franz.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN, and STONE, Circuit Judges.
Appellants have attacked our opinion upon the merits and the conclusions therein respecting the issues of Stock Rights, Advancements, and Participation of the 3 1/3 Interests. The contentions about the Stock Rights and the Participation are denied.
The contention that the Advancements, with interest as allowed, are not proper surcharges against the trustees is denied. In connection with this item there exists, however, a situation which requires attention. The principal amount of these Advances ($100,795.46) was credited in the trust estate by appellants as belonging to Sophie Franz, being treated as repayment of the Advances. This action by the trustees was without court order. Later, Sophie Franz died testate and her estate, including this amount, is in course of administration in a Probate Court of the State of Missouri. Her will left the residue of her estate to nine of the ten remaindermen interests. Appellants contend that, if this Advancements surcharge is now sustained, our opinion on the merits should be modified to prevent a double payment of this item, that is, by the trustees in this action and again from the estate of Sophie Franz. Since the estate of Walter G. Franz, deceased (the tenth remainderman), received nothing under the will of Sophie Franz, his interest in the Advancements is not subject to nor affected by this double payment situation.
We think any such double payment to the nine other remainder interests should be avoided. Since the record here contains no information regarding the status of the Sophie Franz estate — its assets, claims, costs, residue (if any), etc. — we determine that prevention of such double payment can, in a practical way, be best worked out (as to this suit) as follows: (1) each of the nine remainder interests entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Village of Silver Bay, Minnesota
...Co., 1931, 184 Minn. 82, 237 N.W. 846, 78 A.L.R. 589, and Buder v. Fiske, 8 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 260, 268, modified in other respects, 177 F.2d 907. Obviously, then, if there are separate and distinct rights possessed by David, on the one hand, and by his wife and children, on the other, we......
-
Geissal v. Moore Medical Corp.
...v. Ray E. Friedman & Co. Commodities, 688 F.2d 1193, 1197 (8th Cir.1982). See Buder v. Fiske, 174 F.2d 260, 267-68, reh'g denied, 177 F.2d 907 (8th Cir.1949). Plaintiff also did not seek summary judgment on Count Signed this 19th day of March, 1996. 1 Upon the death of plaintiff James W. Ge......
-
Gallon v. LLOYD-THOMAS COMPANY
...148, and the granting or denial of a new trial is not an appealable order. In Buder v. Fiske, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 260, at page 265, modified 177 F.2d 907, this Court, in so holding, stated: "Such determination may be challenged — on the ground of abuse of discretion — in an appeal from the fin......
-
Edgar v. Finley
...F.2d 95; Connelly v. United States, supra, 271 F.2d 333; Buder v. Fiske, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 260 (1949), modified and rehearing denied, 177 F.2d 907 (1949); Martino v. Holzworth, 8 Cir., 158 F.2d 845 (1947); Moylan v. Siciliano, 9 Cir., 292 F.2d 704 (1961); Barrington v. Swanson, supra, 249 F.......