Dickey v. Volker

• Decision Date: 27 October 1928
• Docket Number: 28136
• Citation: 11 S.W.2d 278,321 Mo. 235
• Parties: Walter S. Dickey, Appellant, v. William Volker et al., As University Trustees of William Rockhill Trust under Last Will of William Rockhill Nelson, Irvin Kirkwood et al., the Kansas City Star Company and North Todd Gentry, Attorney-General
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 S.W.2d 278

321 Mo. 235

Walter S. Dickey, Appellant, v. William Volker et al., As University Trustees of William Rockhill Trust under Last Will of William Rockhill Nelson, Irvin Kirkwood et al., the Kansas City Star Company and North Todd Gentry, Attorney-General

No. 28136

Supreme Court of Missouri

October 27, 1928

Motion for Rehearing Overruled October 27, 1928.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. O. A. Lucas, Judge.

Affirmed.

Miller Winger & Reeder and Foristel, Mudd, Blair & Habenicht for appellant; Austin W. Scott and Leland Hazard of counsel.

(1) The charges in the bill being admitted on demurrer and motion to dismiss, the admitted situation is so serious that the chancellor should have heard the evidence. Jahn v. Lumber Co., 148 F. 631; Johnston v. Mercantile Co., 127 F. 845; Maull v. Campbell, 69 Fla. 541; Reed Fertilizer Co. v. Thomas, 97 Tenn. 478; Sill v. Ky Coal Co. (Del. Ch.), 97 A. 617; 21 C. J. 437, 438, 440 455, 638; Eddy v. Baker, 192 F. 624; Burnley v Jeffersonville, 4 Fed. Cas. 2181; Schley v Dixon, 24 Ga. 273; Miller v. Saunders, 17 Ga. 92; Norwich Union Ins. Co. v. Drug Co., 117 Miss. 429; Merchants Bank v. Dent, 102 Miss. 455; Shearer v. Shearer, 50 Miss. 113; Hamilton v. Lockhart, 41 Miss. 460; Smith v. Loomis, 5 N.J.Eq. 60; Day v. Cole, 56 Mich. 294; Hanlon v. Primrose, 56 F. 600; Standard Oil v. Southern Pac. Co., 42 F. 295; Stevens v. Railroad, 5 Dill. 486; Bloomstein v. Clees, 3 Tenn. Ch. 433; Keppelman v. Keppelman, 103 A. 27 (N. J. Ch.) 68; Comm. v. West Virginia, 206 U.S. 290; Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125; Snyder v. DeForrest, 154 F. 142; Rankin v. Miller, 130 F. 229; Smith v. Bawker-Torry, 199 F. 985; 21 C. J. 113, 114; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Yarger, 12 F. 487; Story v. Ry. Co., 24 Conn. 94; Huxley v. Rice, 40 Mich. 73; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. (13 Ed.) sec. 187; Macey Co. v. Macey, 143 Mich. 138. The discretion of the university trustees: 26 R. C. L. 1289, 1290, 1373; 2 Perry on Trusts (6 Ed.) sec. 511; Read v. Patterson, 44 N.J.Eq. 211; State ex rel. v. Dreyer, 183 Mo.App. 463; State ex rel. v. Adcock, 206 Mo. 550. (2) Seested and associates, agents of the university trustees, were fiduciaries under the will and could not legally purchase the trust estate; the sale to them is null and void. York Building Co. v. McKenzie, 3 Paton, 378; Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N.Y. 327; Grumley v. Webb, 44 Mo. 451; Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 503; Dibert v. D'Arcy, 248 Mo. 658; Davenport v. Casey, 222 S.W. 794; Meek v. Hurst, 223 Mo. 698; 1 Perry on Trust (6 Ed.) sec. 195; Iroquois Iron Co. v. Kruse, 241 F. 441; 1 Mechem on Agency (2 Ed.) sec. 1202; Ryan v. Ryan, 174 Mo. 279; Cornet v. Cornet, 248 Mo. 235; J. H. Lane & Co. v. Maple Cotton Mill, 232 F. 423; Trice v. Comstock, 121 F. 622; Conn. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 117 Mo. 295; Magruder v. Drury, 235 U.S. 119; Buckles v. Lafferty's Legatees, 2 Robinson (Va.) 292; In re Frazin and Oppenheim, 181 F. 309. (3) A charitable trust once validly created is inviolate. Catron v. Scarritt Collegiate Institute, 264 Mo. 713; Buchanan v. Kennard, 234 Mo. 117; Strother v. Barrow, 246 Mo. 241; Missouri Historical Soc. v. Academy of Science, 94 Mo. 466; Gray, Rule against Perpetuities (3 Ed.) sec. 681; Perry, Trusts & Trustees (6 Ed.) sec. 704; Hadley v. Forsee, 203 Mo. 418; Zollman, Am. Law of Charities, sec. 107, pp. 69, 70; Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 9 Ves. 399; Schmucker's Estate v. Reel, 61 Mo. 592; 1 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 136; Chambers v. Baptist Educational Soc., 40 Ky. 215; Woman's Christian Assn. v. Kansas City, 147 Mo. 103; State ex rel. Pittman v. Adams, 44 Mo. 570. (4) The protection of charitable trusts has been from the earliest times a principal function of courts of equity. Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127; Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543; Lackland v. Walker, 151 Mo. 210; Mo. Historical Society v. Academy of Science, 94 Mo. 459; Buchanan v. Kennard, 234 Mo. 117. (5) The Statute of Elizabeth did not impair the original jurisdiction of courts of equity over charitable trusts. Gray, Rule against Perpetuities (3 Ed.) 533; Duke, Law of Charitable Uses, 167; 1 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 397; Wright v. Hobert, 9 Mod. 64; 2 Perry, Trusts and Trustees (6 Ed.) secs. 694, 696; Buchanan v. Kennard, 234 Mo. 136; Attorney-General v. Mayor of Dublin, 1 Bligh, 347; Dwight's Charity Cases, pp. 1-6; Chancery Cases, Appendices A, B and C; Shelford, Law of Mortmain, 278. (6) A charitable trust may be enforced not only at the suit of the Attorney-General but also at the suit of any person interested. (a) The Attorney-General never had the sole and exclusive power to bring a proceeding to enforce a charitable trust. Tudor on Charities (4 Ed.) 363; Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127; Estmonde v. Dirdoe (1598), Appendix B, p. 24; Barry v. Ley (1600), Appendix B, p. 25; William Stone v. Dutton (1601), Appendix B, p. 26; Foljambe's Charity (1609), Appendix B, p. 27; Parishioners of Trull v. Smith (1609), Appendix B, p. 27; Carlton v. Blyth, Appendix A, p. 3; Blacknall v. Spivy, Appendix A, p. 5; Estmond v. Lawrence, Appendix A, p. 6; Goodson v. Monday, Appendix A, p. 6; Edward Buggs v. Sibley, Appendix A, p. 8; William Fisher v. Bletsoo, Appendix A, p. 9. (b) The common law of England under which charities were enforced by individuals suing in a representative capacity is by statute the law of Missouri, and has not been altered upon that point by subsequent decisions in this State. Sec. 7048, R. S. 1919; Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543; State ex rel. Pittman v. Adams, 44 Mo. 570; Academy of the Visitation v. Clemens, 50 Mo. 167; Board of Regents v. Painter, 102 Mo. 469; Lilly v. Tobbein, 103 Mo. 477; Women's Christian Assn. v. Kansas City, 147 Mo. 103; Lackland v. Walker, 151 Mo. 210; State ex rel. v. Rusk, 236 Mo. 201; Mott v. Morris, 249 Mo. 137; Crow ex rel. v. Clay County, 196 Mo. 234; Bank v. Longfellow, 96 Mo.App. 385; St. Louis v. McAllister, 281 Mo. 26; In re Rahn's Estate, 291 S.W. 120. (c) Authorities outside of Missouri sustain the right of individuals to invoke the jurisdiction of equity over charitable trusts. Schell v. Leander Clark College, 10 F.2d 542; People ex rel. Ellert v. Cogswell, 113 Cal. 129; Dominy v. Stanley, 133 S. E. (Ga.) 245; Garrison v. Little, 75 Ill.App. 402; Chambers v. Baptist Educational Soc., 40 Ky. 215; Baptist Church v. Presbyterian Church, 57 Ky. 635; Tate v. Woodyard, 140 S.W. 1044; Von Hoven v. Immanuel Pres. Church, 108 La. 274; Parker v. May, 59 Mass. 336; Jackson v. Phillips, 96 Mass. 539; State ex rel. v. Cunningham, 83 Wis. 90; Ludlam v. Higbee, 11 N.J.Eq. 342; Lanning v. Commissioners, 63 N.J.Eq. 1; MacKenzie v. Trustees, 67 N.J.Eq. 652; In re St. Michael's Church, 76 N.J.Eq. 524; Clark v. Oliver, 91 Va. 421; Clement v. Hyde, 50 Vt. 716; Milligan v. Mitchell, 3 Myl. & Cr. 72; Nash v. Morley, 5 Beav. 177; Lang v. Purves, 8 Jurist (N. S.) 523. (d) The plaintiff has such an interest in the performance of the charitable trust that he may bring a representative suit in equity to redress a breach thereof. (e) The principle that the Attorney-General has not an exclusive right to institute proceedings to enforce rights of the public, is recognized in cases holding that private citizens may institute mandamus proceedings. Wellington, Petitioner, 16 Pic. 87; State ex rel. Thomas v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 620; State ex rel. v. School Board, 131 Mo. 505; State ex rel. Morris v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 13; Union Pac. Railroad v. Hall, 91 U.S. 343; State ex rel. v. Dreyer, 183 Mo.App. 463; Ayers v. State Auditors, 42 Mich. 422; State ex rel. Romano v. Yakey, 85 P. 990. (b) "Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." Secs. 1153, 1155, 1157, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. Pittman v. Adams, 44 Mo. 570. (7) The enforcement of charitable trusts is a function of the judiciary which the Attorney-General, an executive official, is without power to curtail. 2 Perry, Trusts and Trustees (6 Ed.) sec. 746, p. 1235. The prerogative of the Crown: 3 Blackstone, Commentaries, 41; 4 Holdsworth, History of English Law, 277; Mo. Constitution, art. 3. The nature of prerogative Cy Pres: Kane v. Cosgrave, Ir. R. 10 Eq. 211; Tyssen Charitable Bequests (2 Ed.), chap. 18; Da Costa v. De Pas, 1 Amb. 228 (1754). No prerogative power exists in the United States. Catron v. Scarritt Collegiate Inst., 264 Mo. 728; Howe v. Wilson, 91 Mo. 45; Missouri Historical Society v. Academy of Science, 94 Mo. 459; Perry, Trusts and Trustees (6 Ed.) sec. 718; State ex rel. v. Cunningham, 83 Wis. 90; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 671; Trustees, Vincennes University, v. Indiana, 14 How. (U.S.) 276; Regents v. Williams, 9 Gill & J. (Md.) 397; Ohio v. Neff, 52 Ohio St. 403; State ex rel. v. Dreyer, 183 Mo.App. 473; State ex rel. Pittman v. Adams, 44 Mo. 582. The Attorney-General's relation to the charity: Canada v. Daniel, 175 Mo.App. 65; State ex rel. Pittman v. Adams, 44 Mo. 582. The analogy in lunacy and other proceedings: 3 Blackstone's Commentaries, 47; Mitford, Pleadings in Chancery (6 Am. Ed.) 29; C. 1, art. 16, secs. 444, 1165, R. S. 1919: Gallego's Executors v. Attorney-General, 3 Leigh, 450; State ex rel. v. Dickman, 175 Mo.App. 549; Hughes v. Jones, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 632; State ex rel. Pittman v. Adams, 44 Mo. 582. (8) To allow the Attorney-General the final determination as to the institution of a suit for the breach of a charitable trust is a denial of due process of law. U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, sec. 10; 14 Amendment, sec. 1; Mo. Constitution, Art. 2, secs. 10, 30; Art. 3; Board of Education v. Bakewell, 122 Ill. 339; Regents v. Williams, 9 Gill & J. 365; Ohio v. Neff, 52 Ohio St. 375; Trustees v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518; 6 Harvard Law Review, 170; Brown v. Hummell, 6 Bar. (Pa.) 86; Cary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass. 364; State ex rel. Pittman v. Adams, 44 Mo. 570; Ex parte...