Covey v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 13 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 17865.,17865. |
| Citation | Covey v. Pierce, 82 S.W.2d 592, 229 Mo.App. 424 (Mo. App. 1935) |
| Parties | COVEY v. PIERCE et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Nodaway County; D. D. Reeves, Judge.
Action by Alice Dell Covey, by next friend, against W. C. Pierce and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Randolph & Randolph and Nile L. Vermillion, all of St. Joseph, for appellant.
Wright & Ford, of Maryville, for respondents.
REYNOLDS, Commissioner.
Plaintiff, by next friend, prosecutes this action against defendants as trustees under the will of Sarah J. Richardson, deceased, for an accounting by them as such of a certain trust estate provided in said will and for their removal as such trustees and the appointment of another trustee as their successor and for the payment by them to such successor when appointed of a sum of money sufficient to restore such estate and for judgment against them, upon an accounting, for such sum as may be found due and owing the trust estate by them with interest and for any and all other equitable relief that might and should be required in the premises.
It appears from the record that the will of Sarah J. Richardson, creating the trust estate, was admitted to probate in the probate court of Nodaway county, Mo., on February 13, 1928. It is necessary to consider only the following provisions thereof in the determination of the questions involved herein:
The defendant W. C. Pierce qualified as executor of the will upon the death of the testatrix and made final settlement of his accounts as such executor in the probate court, upon which settlement he was directed to pay to himself and A. K. Frank, as trustees, a balance in his hands of $2,972.56, comprising the trust estate under said will, and to file their receipt therefor.
From the evidence in the record, it appears that this balance consisted of cash in the sum of $972.56 and a note for $2,000 inventoried among the assets of the estate, which was on hand at the death of the testatrix against one Charles A. Jensen, of date December 18, 1925, due January 1, 1931, with accrued interest unpaid thereon to date of such inventory of $15, amounting at such time to $2,015.
On April 29, 1929, a few days prior to the final settlement made by defendant Pierce as executor, the defendants, as trustees under the will, by their joint receipt in writing, acknowledged receipt from the defendant Pierce as executor of the trust estate mentioned in the sum of $2,972.56, which receipt being delivered to the said Pierce was by him filed in the probate court; and his discharge as executor was procured to be entered thereupon.
At the time of such final settlement with the probate court, it was ordered that the defendants Pierce and Frank, as trustees, make settlement of their accounts in the probate court each year during the existence of the trust estate. Thereafter, defendant Pierce, as trustee, on September 2, 1930, September 8, 1931, and September 5, 1932, filed settlements in said estate in the probate court, purporting to be annual settlements showing the condition of the trust estate at such times.
On April 29, 1929, defendants, as such trustees, deposited in the Farmers' Trust Company at Maryville, Mo., the sum of $972.56 in cash out of said trust fund, which was entered upon the books of said trust company as follows: Later, on January 9, 1930, the defendants, as trustees, deposited the further sum of $2,120 out of said trust estate, being the proceeds (including interest thereon to the date of its collection) of the Jensen note above referred to, which note at that time was collected by the defendants as trustees. Said latter mentioned deposit was entered upon the books of said trust company as follows: underneath which was noted in pencil as follows: "Jensen."
At the time that each of said deposits was thus made in the Farmers' Trust Company, such company was a regularly incorporated banking institution and trust company at Maryville, Mo., of which defendants were the active managing officers. Of its 2,000 shares of stock, the defendant Pierce owned 900. The defendant Pierce was the president and, in addition to being a large stockholder, was also a director. The defendant Frank was the cashier and an active officer and was otherwise interested as a stockholder. From certain exhibits in the record, it appears that it had a capital stock of $200,000 and carried a surplus of $40,000. Its individual deposits were ordinarily around $950,000, its time certificates of deposit ordinarily around $108,000, and its savings deposits ordinarily around $134,000. Its total liabilities were ordinarily listed around $1,735,000, and its total assets and resources at the same figure.
After having been deposited in said trust company, the trust funds as aforesaid were permitted by the defendants to remain upon deposit therein until said company, on April 7, 1930, was closed for business and placed under the control of the state finance department for liquidation and were on deposit in said trust company at the time it closed and passed with the other assets of the company under the control of the finance department.
During all of the time between the date of the first deposit and the closing of the trust company, the defendants continued in their relations with said company as the active managing officers thereof and as stockholders and directors. The trust company passed under the control of the finance department, as an insolvent institution, upon the order of its board of directors, for the purposes of liquidation, and was, at the time of the trial in the court below, in the process of liquidation. For some weeks prior to the closing of the trust company, between March 3, 1930, and April 7, it met with heavy and unexpected withdrawals of its individual deposits, approximately $110,000, resulting in the reduction of its cash and cash items on hand and in items due from other banks to such an extent that the cash reserve required by law to be carried by it was reduced below the required limits, by reason of which it was compelled to close and cease business.
The grounds on which the plaintiff seeks relief are that defendants have, by the manner in which they have handled the trust fund under their care, failed properly to manage and protect the same and have neglected and violated their trust with respect thereto.
The matters relied upon as constituting such neglect and violation of trust are set out in the petition as follows:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Buder v. Fiske
...312 U.S. 262, 269, 61 S.Ct. 493, 85 L.Ed. 820; Jackson v. Smith, 254 U.S. 586, 589, 41 S.Ct. 200, 65 L.Ed. 418; Covey v. Pierce, 229 Mo.App. 424, 82 S.W.2d 592, 598. In the face of this fact situation and of this principle of law, there must be compelling reasons clearly proven before the r......
-
O'Malley v. Continental Life Ins. Co.
...Assn. v. Vernon, 19 F.2d 709; Davis Savs. Trust Co. v. Hardee, 85 F.2d 571; United States Savs. Bank v. Margenthau, 85 F.2d 811; Covey v. Pierce, 82 S.W.2d 592; Cashman Pontiac Trust Co., 269 Mich. 68, 256 N.W. 807. (5) If the court was vested with judicial discretion to make an allowance o......
-
Erwin v. Patterson
...obligation to one trust conflicts with his obligation to another trust or with his personal interests. As was said in Covey v. Pierce, 229 Mo.App. 424, 82 S.W.2d 592, 599, in holding trustees liable under similar circumstances, 'they accepted the trust fund and the care of it, to be managed......
-
Jo Ann Howard & Assocs., P.C. v. Cassity
...is "wrongful and fraudulent or done through negligence or aris[es] through mere oversight and forgetfulness." Covey v. Pierce , 82 S.W.2d 592, 598 (Mo. Ct. App. 1935) (per curiam). Tort claims are not categorically disallowed against trustees. Both third parties and beneficiaries can bring ......