Coffman v. Gates

• Decision Date: 27 December 1904
• Citation: 85 S.W. 657,110 Mo. App. 475
• Parties: COFFMAN et al. v. GATES et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

85 S.W. 657

110 Mo. App. 475

COFFMAN et al. v. GATES et al.^*

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 27, 1904.

PARTITION — ADJUSTMENT OF EQUITIES — APPEAL — PARTIES — TRUSTS — EJECTMENT — DEFENSE OF TRUSTEE — LIABILITY OF CESTUI QUE TRUST.

1. Where, in partition, one who was made a defendant in his capacity as trustee had no interest in the order of distribution, and the same was the only question on an appeal, he having died pending the appeal, it was not necessary to hold the appeal in abeyance in order to appoint a successor for the trustee.

2. On foreclosure of a deed of trust given to testamentary trustees to secure a sum loaned by them from the funds of the estate, the trustee's deed was given to defendant, one of the testamentary trustees, who took thereunder an undivided one-third interest in fee, and held the remaining two-thirds as trustee for the residuary beneficiaries under the will, such interests being subject to sale and conveyance only by the testamentary trustees. Thereafter the testamentary trustees were removed and a sole trustee appointed, the decree of such appointment ordering that he should stand possessed of all the estate, and that the trustees should deliver to him all the real estate. Held, that the decree did not divest title out of defendant.

3. Where one holding an interest in lands in fee, and the remainder as trustee for others, expended money in the bona fide defense of an ejectment suit, he had a right to look to the trust property for proportionate reimbursement.

4. The circuit court in partition proceedings has jurisdiction to equitably adjust the claims of the parties in interest.

5. Where one holding an interest in land in fee, and the remainder in trust for others, expended moneys in the bona fide defense of an ejectment suit, in the absence of any agreement, express or implied, on the part of the others to reimburse him, he was not entitled to look to the cestuis que trust individually for reimbursement in a partition suit.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel G. Taylor, Judge.

Partition by Ella Gates Coffman and others against John J. Gates and others, and from the decree James C. Ghio, individually and as trustee, appeals. Reversed.

In a suit brought by Ella Gates Coffman and her husband, G. L. Coffman, and C. L. Travous, versus John J. Gates, James C. Ghio, Mary O. Harbaugh and her husband, Simon J. Harbaugh, Andrew S. Barada, Mary E. Layton and her husband, W. Pratt Layton, John Ghio Barada, Francis X. Barada, trustee under the will of John B. Ghio, deceased, James C. Ghio, trustee, and John M. Garth, for partition of 305 96/100 acres of land situated in the county of St. Louis, Mo., and known as the "Gates Farm," on June 5, 1902, the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, to which the cause had been transferred by change of venue, rendered an interlocutory decree of partition, and afterwards, on the report of commissioners appointed by the court in said decree, the land was ordered sold. A sale was made and approved by the court, and the proceeds of sale were ordered distributed by the court. In the order of distribution Mary Harbaugh was awarded $1,344.91, Andrew Barada $448.30 1/3, and Mary E. Layton $448.30 1/3, as their distributive shares of the proceeds of sale. The distributive shares of the other parties to the suit were paid over to them, and are not involved in this controversy.

In his answer to the petition in partition, defendant James C. Ghio, individually and as trustee, claimed that he had been compelled to expend, and did expend, for the benefit of his co-tenants in the lands, the following sums of money:

                  1900
                Oct.  5.  Amount paid to attorneys
                            for plaintiff in case of
                            Gates et al. v. Seibert et
                            al., for judgment and costs    $4,062 80
                          Interest thereon at 6 per
                            cent. per annum from October
                            5, 1900, to July 10
                            1903 .......................      673 74
                  "       Attorney's fees and expenses
                            of W. B. Thompson
                            in ejectment suits and
                            suit on bond ...............      775 00
                  "       Attorney's fees and expenses
                            of Noble & Shields
                            in ejectment suits and suit
                            on bond ....................      320 35
                  "       Attorney's fees and expenses
                            of D. C. Taylor in
                            ejectment suits and suit
                            on bond ....................      281 05
                          Interest on said amount of
                            fees and expenses, $1,376.40
                            from October 5
                            1900, to July 10, 1903......      228 24
                  1901
                Jan.  29.  Costs of change of venue in
                            case of James C. Ghio,
                            Trustee, v. Ella Gates
                            Coffman et al. .............       10 00
                          Interest on same from January
                            29, 1901, to July 10,
                            1903 .......................        1 51
                July 3.   Amount paid William A.
                            Darniel for services and
                            attendance .................       20 00
                          Interest on same from July
                            3, 1901, to July 10, 1903.          2 42
                  1902.
                Nov.  2.  Costs of circuit court in
                            case of James C. Ghio,
                            Trustee, v. Ella Gates
                            Coffman et al. ............        41 50
                          Interest on same from November
                            2, 1902, to July
                            10, 1903 ..................         1 75
                          Attorney's fees in case of
                            James C. Ghio, Trustee, v.
                            Ella Gates Coffman et al.         100 00
                          Attorney's fees in this suit        100 00
                                                           _________
                                                           $6,618 36
                

The answer also made the following claims:

                That one-third of said amount of
                   $6,618.36, or .....................     $2.206 12
                is chargeable against Mary O. Harbaugh,
                    less her interest in the
                    fund in court, being one-half
                    of $2,689.82, or ..................     1,344 91
                                                           _________
                and that a judgment should be rendered
                    against said Mary O.
                    Harbaugh and in favor of said
                    James C. Ghio for .................    $  861 21
                                                           _________
                That one-ninth of said amount
                    of $6,618.36, or ..................    $ 735 37 1/3
                is chargeable against defendant
                    Andrew Barada, less his interest
                    in said fund in court, being
                    one-sixth of $2,689.82, or ........      448 30 1/3
                                                             ________
                and that a judgment should be rendered
                    against said Andrew S.
                    Barada and in favor of said
                    James C. Ghio for .................    $ 287 07
                                                           ________
                That one-ninth of said amount of
                    $6,618.36, or .....................    $ 735 37 1/3
                is chargeable to defendant Marie
                    Elise Layton, less her interest
                    in said fund in court, being one-sixth
                    of $2,689.82, or ...................     448 30 1/3
                                                             ________
                and that a judgment should be rendered
                    against said Marie Elise
                    Layton and in favor of said
                    James C. Ghio for .................    $ 287 07
                                                           _________
                That one-ninth of said amount of
                    $6,618.36, or .....................    $ 735 37 1/3
                is chargeable against defendant
                    John Ghio Barada, less his interest
                    in said fund in court,
                    being one-sixth of $2,689.82, or         448 30 1/3
                                                             _________
                and that a judgment should be
                    rendered against said John
                    Ghio Barada and in favor of
                    said James C. Ghio for ............    $ 287 07
                

The court denied the relief prayed for, and ordered the several distributive shares of Harbaugh, Barada, and Layton to be paid over to them; from this order James C. Ghio appealed. That Ghio paid $4,062.81 as judgment and costs in the case of Gates et al., is not controverted, nor is the fact that he paid the attorney's fees and costs as alleged, nor is it controverted that the attorney's fees are reasonable. The contention of the three respondents, Harbaugh, Barada, and Layton, is that they are in nowise liable to James C. Ghio for any part of these moneys paid out by him.

We will have to begin with the year 1885 to get at the facts out of which this controversy arose. In that year John B. Ghio died testate. By his will he left his estate (a large one) to three trustees, his widow, Elizabeth C. Ghio, William Booth, and his son, James C. Ghio (appellant). The trustees, while administering the estate, loaned to Jacob S. Gates and Lavina Gates the sum of $10,000, taking notes for the principal and interest, secured by a deed of trust on what is known as the "Gates Farm." The deed of trust was foreclosed, and the trustee in the deed of trust executed his deed to James C. Ghio, in which it was provided that Ghio should, as is provided in the will of his father, John B. Ghio, take in fee an undivided one-third interest in the lands to himself and heirs, and hold the undivided two-thirds in trust, without power of sale (except by consent of the trustees of John B. Ghio's estate), one-third for Mary Barada and her children, and one-third for the use of Mary Cummiskey. After the execution of this deed, James C. Ghio, in his individual capacity, and as trustee with Elizabeth Ghio and William Booth, the other trustees of the estate of John C. Ghio, leased the lands to William and Albert Seibert for a term of five years at a yearly rental of $1,000. The lessees entered into possession, paid the rent, and held the lands as tenants for the term of their lease. The lands were formerly owned by John Gates, who died in the year 1872, leaving his widow, Lavina Gates, and three children, to whom by will he left most of his property. The fifth clause of his will reads as follows: "I hereby give and bequeath to my son, Jacob Snyder Gates (and...