Buder v. Franz
Decision Date | 16 May 1928 |
Docket Number | 7906,7911.,7904,No. 7903,7903 |
Citation | 27 F.2d 101 |
Parties | BUDER et al. v. FRANZ et al., and three other cases. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Oscar E. Buder and G. A. Buder, Jr., both of St. Louis, Mo. (A. W. Wenger and E. E. Schowengerdt, both of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for Gustavus A. Buder and others.
S. Mayner Wallace, of St. Louis, Mo. (Allen McReynolds, of Carthage, Mo., on the brief), for Ehrhardt W. Franz.
T. M. Pierce, of St. Louis, Mo. (Samuel H. Liberman, of St. Louis, Mo., John B. Hollister, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and A. Holt Roudebush, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for Mississippi Valley Trust Co.
Earl F. Nelson, of St. Louis, Mo. (Wilfley, Williams, McIntyre & Nelson, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for Earl F. Nelson.
Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District Judge.
This litigation has been before this court three times — once, on questions of jurisdiction and parties (11 F.2d 854); once, on questions of practice and procedure, involving the modification of the order of this court on the above appeal (11 F.2d 854, 858); once, on an ancillary bill to protect and preserve the jurisdiction of the trial court (15 F.2d 797). The first trial was upon the merits but, as the decree thereon was a dismissal of the bill for lack of necessary and indispensable parties, there was no determination of the merits. On that appeal our No. 7019, 11 F.(2d) 854, counsel argued various points on the merits but, as this court thought that necessary and indispensable parties were lacking, it did not examine the merits except so far as to answer the questions as to parties and jurisdiction. On the return to the trial court, the bill was amended bringing in all interested parties and the second trial and decree were upon the merits. Generally speaking, the result of that decree was to grant the relief sought in the bill and by the interveners. From that result, the main appeal herein is taken. There are cross-appeals on costs and concerning the bonds required to be given under the decree.
These appellants argue their assignments under five headings. There is no material conflict in the evidence. The issues are as to the legal effect of the evidence. For an understanding of these issues an outline will be given of the material evidence with such further detailed statement, in connection with each issue, as may be necessary to develop the situation.
Prior to February 11, 1898, Ehrhardt D. Franz died testate in St. Louis, Mo., leaving an estate consisting (besides household goods and a small amount of cash) of (1) an undetermined interest in bonds, inventoried at $2,543.50; (2) bonds, inventoried at $24,750; (3) shares in various corporations, valued at $55,185; (4) notes, inventoried at $14,307.50; (5) insurance, inventoried at $1,000; (6) thirteen pieces of real estate. The residuary portion of his will was as follows:
The estate was administered; the executrix discharged on March 10, 1900; and the residuary assets turned over to the wife (Sophie Franz) who was then 59 years old.
Among the assets of the estate turned over to Sophie Franz (in 1898) were 210 shares of the American Arithmometer Company. Thereafter, that company declared stock dividends of a like amount and, still later, the Burroughs Adding Machine Company acquired the assets and business of the Arithmometer Company and exchanged 4,200 of its shares for the above 420 shares in the Arithmometer Company. All of this took place by 1905.
January 30, 1909, Sophie Franz executed a trust agreement with G. A. Franz (one of the sons) and G. A. Buder (who had been counsel for the deceased, the estate, and later, of Mrs. Franz). This instrument conveyed from her to Franz and Buder, as trustees:
The powers of the trustees were to collect and recover:
Also they were empowered:
"To expend, disburse, retain, and pay out of said trust estate and funds, any and all assessments, charges and taxes, whether general or special, attorneys' fees, outlays, compensation, charges and costs of administration, necessary, incident or essential to and for the care, protection, preservation, administration, management and distribution of the assets hereby conveyed or hereafter acquired and are authorized and empowered to make, create, and pay all necessary debts, expenses and outlays for repairs, betterments, or improvements, which they may deem necessary or proper for the protection, preservation, improvement, sale or transfer of any and all real estate of which they may become owners as such trustees, whether acquired by foreclosure or otherwise, and are authorized and empowered to make any and all such other payments, outlays, and expenditures as they may deem necessary, expedient or proper for the protection of such real estate and the assets of such trust estate."
Certain disbursements to Mrs. Franz and to the children (or their heirs) were provided for as follows: $4,000 annually "shall" be paid to Mrs. Franz "providing the income, rents, earnings, and profits of the estate which they may hold and securities hereby conveyed, admit of such payments being made," with the power, in named emergencies, to "in their discretion increase said quarterly payment to her to such an amount, and for such time and upon such terms and conditions as they may deem best and proper"; after these payments to Mrs. Franz, the trustees "may pay" $625.00 quarterly to each of the ten children (or the heirs thereof) but:
"In the event the earnings, income, rents, receipts and profits received by said trustees are not sufficient to admit of such payment quarterly to each of the distributees above named and cannot be conveniently made, then the said trustees, after so making payment to said Sophie Franz, of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) quarterly, or such other sum as they may deem necessary as aforesaid may pay to each of the said distributees such sum as they may deem proper, but in no event and under no circumstances shall the said payment encroach upon or impair the principal and assets of the trust estate hereby created."
The instrument provided, also, that semiannual...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Buder v. Fiske
...of their position as trustees, entitled to a commission upon these "rights." Fiske v. Buder, 8 Cir., 125 F.2d 841, 847; Buder v. Franz, 8 Cir., 27 F.2d 101, 113 and see Missouri Central Building and Loan Ass'n v. Eveler, 237 Mo. 679, 141 S.W. 877, 879, Ann.Cas.1913A, 486. They rely upon thi......
-
Tucker v. Brown
... ... 569, 1 A.2d 662; ... Murphy v. Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile, 240 Ala ... 688, 200 So. 894; Burder v. Franz, 8 Cir., 27 F.2d ... 101; Haas v. Wishmier's Estate, 99 Ind.App. 31, ... 190 N.E. 548; In re [20 Wn.2d 847] Johnston's Estate, 127 ... ...
-
Chapman v. Chapman
... ... Hayes v. St. Louis Union ... Trust Co., 317 Mo. 1028, 298 S.W. 91; Robert v ... Mercantile Trust Co., 23 S.W.2d 32; Buder v ... Franz, 27 F.2d 101. (b) The decree of 1918 is binding ... only on the parties to that suit. Matthews v. Van ... Cleve, 282 Mo. 19, 221 ... ...
-
In re Buder
...conduct in giving fraudulent advice and fraudulent misrepresentation to their clients in the "Trustees Commission" matter. Buder v. Franz, 27 F.2d 101; Fiske v. Buder, 125 F.2d 841. (3) G. A. Buder and Oscar E. Buder were guilty of unethical conduct in representing conflicting interests wit......