Doud v. Lockett
| Decision Date | 04 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 16569.,16569. |
| Citation | 215 S.W. 769 |
| Parties | DOUD v. LOCKETT. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William T. Jones, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Suit by Menzer F. Doud, administrator d. b. n. of the estate of Sarah Ann Lockett, deceased, against Joseph H. Lockett to set aside a judgment in probate. Decree for defendant on demurrer, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Bartley & Douglass, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Albert E. Hausman, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an action in equity begun in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, to set aside an order and judgment of the probate court, allowing a claim of the respondent against the estate of Sarah Ann Lockett, deceased, mother of the claimant.
The facts, briefly stated, are about as follows:
Sarah Ann Lockett lived in the City of St. Louis at the time of her death, which occurred about the 6th day of March, 1914. She left surviving her, as heirs at law, four children, among whom is this respondent, Joseph H. Lockett. By the terms of the will of deceased each of the children were to share equally in the estate, consisting of an undivided one-half interest in a lot of ground fronting on Florida street in said city, and on which were located three or four buildings, one of which was occupied and used as respondent's dwelling house. In one of these buildings, the respondent lived for several years prior to the death of his mother. John Lockett, husband of deceased, was named as executor in the will, and qualified and entered upon his duties as such in March of the same year in which his wife, Sarah Ann Lockett, died. About the 18th of January, 1915, John Lockett died, in the city of St. Louis, aforesaid. After his death, this appellant, Menzer F. Doud, was appointed by the probate court as administrator de bonis non, and qualified as such about the 22d of January, 1916.
A short time prior to the death of John Lockett, the appellant, in response to information furnished him, prepared for the respondent herein a claim to be filed against the estate of Sarah Ann Lockett, amounting to $2,000, a part of which, respondent claimed, was for money which he had spent in repairing some of the property belonging to deceased; and as to the remainder it is not clear as to what it was for, or upon what it was based.
John Lockett, as executor, signed a waiver of presentation on said claim, a few days before his death. A short time after appellant Menzer F. Doud, was made administrator de bonis non, all of the children of Sarah Ann Lockett met at his office in the Pierce Building in the city of St. Louis, at which time and place this claim was discussed. Respondent and his brother, John A. Lockett, retired to an adjoining room, and, after they returned to the room where the administrator and other heirs were, John A. Lockett announced or stated to the administrator, in substance, to let the claim be allowed. Later during the day, the administrator and all the heirs went to the probate court in the city of St. Louis, at which time the court allowed said claim. This order and judgment of allowance was entered by the probate court against the estate of Sarah Ann Lockett, in the sum of $2,000. The testimony shows that all the heirs were brought to the office of the administrator for the purpose of discussing the merits of this claim, and perhaps others. They were together most of the day, and were all present when the allowance was made. No objection was made to the allowance by any of the heirs, and the administrator seemed to make no particular investigation as to the merits of this claim.
About the last of May or the first of June, 1916, appellant, as administrator, paid respondent said allowance, and filed final settlement on July 3, 1916. This suit was filed on the 2d of June, 1917. The appellant charges respondent fraudulently procured the allowance of said claim, by withholding from, and misrepresenting facts to, the appellant as well as the probate court. At the trial of the cause in the circuit court, after hearing the evidence offered on the part of the plaintiff, the court sustained a demurrer, and from this action an appeal was taken to this court.
A court of equity will assume jurisdiction and grant relief in an action to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud in the probate court, even though there be a concurrent legal remedy at law. Fraud, going to the question of jurisdiction, may be raised in proceedings of this kind, and relief will be granted, where the testimony shows that fraud has been practiced in procuring the judgment. Fitzpatrick v. Stevens, 114 Mo. App. 497, 89 S. W. 897; Link v. Link, 48 Mo. App. 345.
It is also well settled that, to obtain such relief, it is necessary that the fraud...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- White v. Reading
-
Peeters v. Schultz
... ... procurement of the judgment. Woodmen Acc. Co. v ... Martin, 215 S.W. 777; Dous v. Lockett, 215 S.W ... 769; Doud v. Ebbinghaus, 215 S.W. 771; Lieber v ... Lieber, 239 Mo. 42; Cantwell v. Johnson, 236 ... Mo. 600; Vandeventer ... ...
-
Shepard v. Shepard
...or vacating such judgment. Wagoner v. Wagoner, 229 S.W. 1064; 34 C.J., p. 470, sec. 738; Abington v. Townsend, 197 S.W. 253; Doud v. Lockett, 215 S.W. 769. (7) There was chance for the judgment creditor, appellant herein, to know of the proceedings by reason of the manner in which they were......
-
Wortham v. Marten
...and things herein necessary to support respondent's case were res adjudicata. Fadler v. Gabbert, 63 S.W.2d 121, 333 Mo. 851; Doud v. Lockett, 215 S.W. 769; United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. Irvine v. Leyh, 102 Mo. 200, 16 S.W. 10; Ellsworth v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 147 S.......