Dozier v. Dozier
Decision Date | 20 June 1904 |
Citation | 183 Mo. 137,81 S.W. 890 |
Parties | DOZIER v. DOZIER et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
bulk of his estate, consisting of stocks in a corporation, in trust for the benefit of certain other brothers and sisters named; directing that the trustee should pay over to the beneficiaries of the trust the dividends collected on the stock, with power to the trustee to sell the stock and reinvest the proceeds; directing that, at the death of any beneficiary, his or her descendants should take their share divested of the trust. Testator then directed that the residuum of his estate, which consisted only of a remainder in a lot previously devised to his mother for life, and certain stock set aside for the support of a brother for life, should be equally divided absolutely among his other brothers and sisters and their children. Held, that the beneficiaries under the sixth clause of the will took a life estate only in the property bequeathed therein, remainder to their children or grandchildren in the direct line, discharged of the trust.
2. Where personal property was bequeathed in trust for certain beneficiaries named, and, at the death of any of them, to his or their descendants, divested of the trust, on the death of one of the beneficiaries, leaving no descendants in the direct line, his proportion of the trust fund would fall into the residuum, and pass in equal proportions to the residuary legatees.
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Warwick Hough, Judge.
Suit by Lewis D. Dozier against Francis M. Dozier and others. From an adverse decree, Laura Monroe Dozier appeals. Affirmed.
Campbell & Thompson, for appellant. Randolph Laughlin, for respondents.
This is a suit in equity by the trustee under the will of John T. Dozier, deceased, asking the chancellor to construe said will, and to advise him as to his duty as such trustee with respect to the interest, under the will, of Adrien De Bow Dozier, deceased. The case made is this: On June 29, 1888, John T. Dozier died testate. His will is as follows:
Lewis D. Dozier qualified as executor, and finally administered upon said estate, and has ever since been acting as trustee under said will. As such trustee, he has changed the character of some of the trust property — principally by selling the stock of the Dozier-Weyl Cracker Company, and reinvesting the proceeds in the bonds of the American Biscuit & Manufacturing Company and the stock of the National Cracker Company, all of which was done with the consent of all the beneficiaries, living at the time.
Heretofore, on June 2, 1893, Margaret Adeline Dozier, one of the beneficiaries named in the seventh clause of the will, died testate. By her will she attempted to dispose of her share of the property. The trustee, Lewis D. Dozier, being in doubt, under the will, as to her power to dispose of such interest, and as to his duty in making distribution of the profits and dividends arising from the trust fund, instituted a suit in equity, asking the court to construe the will and to advise him as to his duty. He made all the defendants in this suit parties to that suit, except Jascal W. Stone, Laura Monroe Dozier, and John Dozier Crittenden. The appellant herein, Laura Monroe Dozier, was at that time the wife of Adrien De Bow Dozier. Her husband was then living, and she was made a party defendant herein because she claims dower in the interest that her husband had in the property by virtue of the seventh clause of the will. The particular point involved in that action was whether the persons named in the seventh clause of the will took a fee-simple or only a life estate in the property. The chancellor, Hon. Leroy B. Valliant, construed the will to mean that they took only a life estate, and that at their death their share passed to their descendants, discharged of the trust, and that the term "descendants" meant children, grandchildren, etc., in a straight line. Hence the chancellor advised that as Margaret Adeline Dozier took only a life estate, and, as she died without such descendants, her share passed to the other persons named in the seventh clause of the will, and that she had no power to dispose of it by her last will. All the parties to that suit acquiesced in that judgment, and Adrien De Bow...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Middleton v. Dudding
......Frey, 226 Mo. 646, 126 S. W. 483; Wells v. Fuchs, 226 Mo. 97, 125 S. W. 1137; Grace v. Perry, 197 Mo. 550, 95 S. W. 875, 7 Ann. Cas. 948; Dozier v. Dozier, 183 Mo. loc. cit. 146, 81 S. W. 890; Walton v. Drumtra, 152 Mo. 489, 54 S. W. 233; Cross v. Hoch, 149 Mo. loc. cit. 343, 50 S. W. 786; ......
-
Shelton v. McHaney, 34626.
......77; Hook v. Dyer, 47 Mo. 214; Murphy v. Carlin, 113 Mo. 12; Marshall v. Myers, 96 Mo. App. 643, 70 S.W. 927; Foote v. Sanders, 72 Mo. 616; Dozier v. Dozier, 81 S.W. 890; Turney v. Sparks, 88 Mo. App. 363; Cook v. Couch, 100 Mo. 29. (c) Where a lawyer undertakes to advise a client as to his ......
-
Grace v. Perry
...... supplied and omitted, and sentences transposed. [R. S. 1899,. sec. 4650; Brooks v. Brooks, 187 Mo. 476, 86 S.W. 158; Dozier v. Dozier, 183 Mo. 137, 81 S.W. 890;. Meiners v. Meiners, 179 Mo. 614, 78 S.W. 795;. Simmons v. Cabanne, 177 Mo. 336, 76 S.W. 618;. ......
-
Cornet v. Cornet
...... nothing more. Rutherford v. Greene, 2 Wheat. 196;. Armor v. Frey, 226 Mo. 646; Cross v. Hoch, . 149 Mo. 325; Dozier v. Dozier, 183 Mo. 137;. Munro v. Collins, 95 Mo. 33; Schorr v. Carter, 120 Mo. 409; Morrison v. Thistle, 67. Mo. 596; Bean v. Kenmuir, ......