Carter v. Boone County Trust Co.

• Citation: 92 S.W.2d 647,338 Mo. 629
• Decision Date: 18 March 1936
• Docket Number: 32147
• Parties: Richard T. Carter, Appellant, v. Boone County Trust Company et al
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

92 S.W.2d 647

338 Mo. 629

Richard T. Carter, Appellant, v. Boone County Trust Company et al

No. 32147

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 18, 1936

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1936.

Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court; Hon. Charles T. Hays Judge.

Affirmed.

Cullen Fauntleroy & Edwards and Franklin E. Reagan for appellant.

(1) A devise that real estate shall be kept and the entire income divided between the testator's grandchildren perpetually passes to said grandchildren a fee simple title. Walter v. Dickman, 274 Mo. 185; Lawes-Wittewronge, Maurice v. Bennett, 8 Br. R. C. 603; In re Coward, 56 L. T. (N. S.) 278; Scanlin v. Peterson, 135 A. 395; Stigers v. Dinsmore, 193 Pa. St. 482, 44 A. 550; Post v. Rivers, 40 N.J.Eq. 22; Barclay v Platt, 170 Ill. 388, 48 N.E. 973. (2) If the will of Haden does not pass to his grandchildren a fee simple title after the payment of certain annuities, then the said Haden died intestate, so far as the opera house property is concerned. Crawson v. Crawson, 19 S.W.2d 635; 2 Alexander on Wills, sec. 680, p. 1008; Walters v. Neafus, 136 Ky. 756, 125 S.W. 167; Durham's Admr. v. Clay, 142 Ky. 96, 134 S.W. 153; In re Trumble's Will, 137 A.D. 483, 122 N.Y.S. 763; Allison v. Hitchcock, 309 Mo. 495; Smith v. Hutchison, 61 Mo. 87; Farish v. Cook, 78 Mo. 220; Tillerson v. Taylor, 282 Mo. 211; Dunlap v. Hart, 274 Mo. 609; Thompson on the Law of Wills, sec. 236; Burne v. McGrath, 130 Cal. 316, 80 Am. St. Rep. 127; Schumpf v. Rhodwald, 62 Neb. 105; Cope v. Cope, 15 N.E. 203; Fitzsimmons v. Harmon, 108 Me. 456, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.), 400, 81 A. 667; 2 Alexander, Commentaries on Wills, pp. 1574, 1575, sec. 1092. (3) A devise of land to one's grandchildren, with directions that it shall be kept and never sold, offends the rule against perpetuities and embodies an unlawful restraint on alienation. Gray, The Rule Against Perpetuities (3 Ed.), pp. 99, 379, 422; Tarrant v. Backus, 28 A. 47; McDowell v. Brown, 21 Mo. 57; Haeussler v. Mo. Iron Co., 110 Mo. 188, 19 S.W. 75; Kessner v. Phillips, 189 Mo. 515; Pratt v. Ry. Co., 130 Mo.App. 175, 108 S.W. 1099; Millard v. Beaumont, 194 Mo.App. 69, 185 S.W. 547; Wilson v. Cockrill, 8 Mo. 1; Vaughan v. Guy, 17 Mo. 429; Lockridge v. Mace, 109 Mo. 162, 18 S.W. 1145; Bradford v. Blossom, 190 Mo. 110, 88 S.W. 721; Shepperd v. Fisher, 206 Mo. 208, 103 S.W. 989; Buxton v. Kroeger, 219 Mo. 224, 117 S.W. 1147; Riley v. Jaeger, 189 S.W. 1168; Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 298 Mo. 148, 249 S.W. 629; Mockbee v. Grooms, 300 Mo. 446, 254 S.W. 170; Raymond v. Northern Trust Co., 150 Ill.App. 282; Bigelow v. Cady, 171 Ill. 229, 63 Am. St. Rep. 230, 48 N.E. 974; Kolb v. Landes, 277 Ill. 440, 115 N.E. 539; Branson v. Bailey, 246 Ill. 490, 92 N.E. 940; Pulitzer v. Livingston, 89 Me. 359, 36 A. 637; True Real Est. Co. v. True, 99 A. 627; Anderson v. Menefee, 174 S.W. 904; 2 Alexander on Wills, p. 1672. (4) It is not proper to construe one clause of a will by another when they relate to different kinds of property and are neither grammatically nor logically connected. Thompson on Construction of Wills, p. 475, sec. 353; Redfield on the Law of Wills (3 Ed.), p. 425; 3 Jarman on Wills (7 Ed.), sec. 1930, p. 2147; Wood v. Polk, 12 Heisk. 220; Thompson on Construction of Wills, p. 555, sec. 431; Scruggs v. Mayberry, 135 Tenn. 586, 188 S.W. 207; United States F. & G. Co. v. Douglas, 120 S.W. 332. (5) The clause should any of the legatees "die without issue living" is uncertain and contingent and refers to the death of one or more of the beneficiaries before the death of the testator and such is the presumption of the law. O'Mahoney v. Burdett, L. R. 7 Eng. & Irish App. Cases, 388: Northcutt v. McAllister, 297 Mo. 475; Stevenson v. Stern, 29 S.W.2d 116; Philbert v. Campbell, 317 Mo. 570; Men & Millions Case, 296 Mo. 110; Palmer v. French, 32 S.W.2d 593; Alexander Commentaries on Wills, p. 1268, sec. 866, p. 1270, sec. 867, p. 1382, sec. 950; Real Estate Co. v. Magaree, 280 Mo. 52; Deacon v. Trust Co., 271 Mo. 688; Faust's Admrx. v. Birner, 30 Mo. 414; Yocum v. Siler, 160 Mo. 281; Sullivan v. Garesche, 229 Mo. 496; Ewart v. Dalby, 5 S.W.2d 428; In re Seewald's Estate, 127 A. 63; Patterson v. Reed, 260 Pa. 322, 103 A. 735; Buzby's Appeal, 61 Pa. 111; Patterson v. Madden, 36 A. 275; Spira v. Frankel, 97 So. 105. (6) The expression of a contrary intention which will preclude the application of the rule that the class must be determined as of the date of testator's death must be clear and unambiguous, and it is not sufficient that there is in the will that which raises a doubt, ever so serious. Tate v. Tate, 160 Ga. 449, 128 S.E. 393; Cusack v. Rood, 24 Week. Rep. 391; Mitchell v. Bridges, 13 Week. Rep. 200; Wharton v. Barker, 4 K. & J. 483, 70 Eng. Repr. 202. (7) The rule that the death of the beneficiary must occur before the death of the testator in order to make such clauses operative has become "a rule of property" which at this late date the courts decline to depart from. Jackson v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 153; Faust's Admrx. v. Birner, 30 Mo. 414; Barber v. Ry. Co., 166 U.S. 99; Guffey v. Smith, 237 U.S. 101; United States v. Title Ins. Co., 265 U.S. 472. (8) Considering the definite and positive language in clause 15 of the Haden will, by which language a fee was created, Section 16 of said will is void in so far as it tends to cut down or destroy the title in fee. McDowell v. Brown, 21 Mo. 57; Green v. Sutton, 50 Mo. 186; Tremmel v. Kleibolt, 75 Mo. 255, 6 Mo.App. 549; Wead v. Gray, 78 Mo. 59, 8 Mo.App. 515; Cook v. Couch, 100 Mo. 29, 13 S.W. 80; Chew v. Keller, 100 Mo. 362, 13 S.W. 395; Small v. Field, 102 Mo. 104, 13 S.W. 395; Cornwell v. Orton, 126 Mo. 355; Cornwell v. Wulff, 148 Mo. 542; Rothwell v. Craig, 147 Mo. 616; Rothwell v. Jamison, 147 Mo. 601; Roberts v. Crume, 173 Mo. 572; Roth v. Rauschenbusch, 173 Mo. 582; Simmons v. Cabanne, 177 Mo. 336; Brooks v. Brooks, 187 Mo. 476; Kessner v. Phillips, 189 Mo. 515; Young v. Robinson, 122 Mo.App. 187; Paper v. Piednoir, 205 Mo. 521; Jackson v. Littell, 213 Mo. 589; Cornet v. Cornet, 248 Mo. 184; Lemp v. Lemp, 264 Mo. 533; Middleton v. Dudding, 183 S.W. 443; Welch v. Harvey, 281 Mo. 684; Thornbrough v. Craven, 225 S.W. 445; Schee v. Boone, 295 Mo. 212; In re McClelland, 257 S.W. 808. (9) Leases made by a trustee must conform to what is reasonable under the circumstances. When a lease made by a trustee is unreasonable, improvident and beyond the needs of the trust, equity, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over trusts, decrees the cancellation of such a lease and frees the land from the burden placed upon it by the trustee. Wilmington Trust Co. v. Carron, 125 A. 351; Hubbel v. Hubbel, 135 Iowa 637, 113 N.W. 512, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 496, 14 Ann. Cas. 640; Hutcheson v. Hodnett, 115 Ga. 990, 42 S.E. 422; Greason v. Keteltas, 17 N.Y. 491; 39 Cyc. 387; 2 Perry on Trusts & Trustees (6 Ed.), secs. 484, 528, 530; 26 R. C. L. 1301; Thornton v. Harris, 53 S.E. 341; Griffin v. Ford, 1 Bos. 150; Good v. Comfort, 39 Mo. 313; Montgomery v. Miller, 33 S.W. 165, 131 Mo. 595; Keith v. Browning, 40 S.W. 764, 139 Mo. 190; Vail v. Jacobs, 62 Mo. 130; Holdsworth v. Shannon, 21 S.W. 89, 113 Mo. 508; Middleton v. Baker, 262 Mo. 398; Meyer v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 5 Mo.App. 245. (10) The trustee under the will of Haden had no power to make the lease in question. Rapp v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 229 S.W. 1105; 2 Pomeroy's Eq. Jur., sec. 1062; Murphy v. Delano, 95 Me. 229, 49 A. 1053, 55 L. R. A. 727; Garesche v. Levering Co., 146 Mo. 436; Hildenbrandt v. Wolf, 79 Mo.App. 333; Taussig v. Reel, 134 Mo. 530; United States v. Noble, 237 U.S. 83. (11) Leases by trustees are closely scrutinized by courts of equity and when unjust, unconscionable or inequitable they are set aside. Railroad Co. v. Curant, 95 U.S. 579; Shaw v. Railroad Co., 100 U.S. 613; Clews v. Jamieson, 182 U.S. 478; Tyler v. Campbell, 106 U.S. 326; Barney v. Saunders, 16 How. 544; Taylor v. Benham, 5 How. 274; Sturm v. Baker, 150 U.S. 330; Stephen v. Beall, 22 Wall. 340; Hammond v. Hopkins, 143 U.S. 251. (12) The lease should be canceled and set aside because the rent reserved is shockingly inadequate. United B. & Elec. Co. v. West, 280 U.S. 234; Home Tel. Co. v. Carthage, 235 Mo. 644; 1 Page on Contracts (1 Ed.), sec. 641, p. 1114; Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 520; Van Graafieland v. Wright, 286 Mo. 414; State ex rel. v. Davidson, 315 Mo. 556; Grodsky v. Consolidated Bag Co., 26 S.W.2d 618; Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence (4 Ed.), sec. 955, p. 1935; Page on the Law of Contracts, secs. 636-643, pp. 1103-1120; 4 R. C. L., secs. 15, 16, p. 501; 9 C. J., p. 1174, secs. 35, 36. (13) The lease contract was constructively fraudulent because of the self interest and family interest and monetary interest, dual relation of the contracting parties, and said lease was fraudulent in fact because it appropriated rents due plaintiff (if he was a life tenant) and used said rents in making permanent improvements for the sole benefit of the children of the trustee and the other persons who negotiated said lease. Cloud v. Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552; Johnson v. United Rys. Co., 281 Mo. 90; McKee v. Spiro, 107 Mo. 452; Rumley v. Webb, 44 Mo. 444; Patterson v. Booth, 103 Mo. 402; Newton v. Rebenack, 90 Mo.App. 672; Wilmington Trust Co. v. Carrow, 125 A. 352; Bassett v. Shoemaker, 46 N.J.Eq. 538, 20 A. 52, 19 Am. St. Rep. 435; Scottish-American Mtg. Co. v. Clowney, 70 S.C. 229, 49 S.E. 569, 3 Ann. Cas. 437; 1 Perry on Trusts & Trustees, 321; 39 Cyc. 373. (14) The $ 35,000 in rent and $ 42,000 insurance money belonged to plaintiff as his absolute property and was invested in permanent improvements and the remaindermen (if the court holds plaintiff has only a life estate) should refund plaintiff's proportion to him. Bush Const. Co. v. Withnell, 190...