Fiske v. State of Missouri

• Decision Date: 07 March 1934
• Docket Number: No. 9630.,9630.
• Citation: 69 F.2d 683
• Parties: FISKE et al. v. STATE OF MISSOURI et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

69 F.2d 683 (1934)

FISKE et al. v. STATE OF MISSOURI et al.

No. 9630.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 19, 1934.

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1934.

G. A. Buder, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo. (O. E. Buder, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellants.

Powell B. McHaney, Asst. to Atty. Gen. of Missouri (Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen. of Missouri, and Gilbert Lamb and John W. Hoffman, Jr., Assts. to Atty. Gen. of Missouri, on the brief), for appellees.

Before STONE, GARDNER, and SANBORN, Circuit Judges.

STONE, Circuit Judge.

Ehrhardt D. Franz left a testate estate to his wife, Sophie, and their ten children. A portion thereof later passed into a trust with the same persons as beneficiaries. Extended litigation developed, wherein three and one-third of the ten children interests were arrayed against the mother, the trustees, and six and two-thirds of the children interests. Broadly, this litigation determined the interests of all parties to the trust to be that the mother had a life interest in the income from the trust estate and that the trust would terminate at her death when the trust estate would be distributable by the trustees to the other beneficiaries. The mother died testate and her separate estate is in course of administration in a probate court in Missouri. At this stage, the other beneficiaries under the trust moved for distribution of the trust estate.

Before this motion was acted upon, the state of Missouri (through its proper officials) obtained leave to intervene. This intervention was based on the grounds that the state was entitled to inheritance taxes upon the estate of the mother; that the interests in the trust estate of the above six and two-thirds of the children interests were parts of the mother's estate and subject to the tax; that these interests were not inventoried in her estate; that the owners of such six and two-thirds interests were nonresidents of the state, and if their interests in the trust estate were distributed direct to them the state would lose its lien for such taxes. Therefore, it prayed that a sufficient portion of the trust estate to secure such taxes which might go to such interests be transferred from the trustees to the court registry and be there held "until it may be determined in the Probate Court of the City of St. Louis whether such stock should be inventoried" as a part of the mother's estate.

Shortly after filing of this intervention, representatives of five of the above six and two-thirds interests filed an "Ancillary and Supplemental Bill of Complaint for an Injunction" against the state and certain others alleging that it and they had caused a citation from the above probate court to be served on the executor of the mother's estate for the purpose of having their above interests in the trust estate inventoried in and as part of the mother's estate and that such would be contrary to the decree of the federal trial court adjudging them entitled to receive these interests direct from the trustees. The state, appearing specially, moved to dismiss this ancillary and supplemental bill on the ground (among others) that it was an action against the state in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. This motion was sustained, and, the parties declining to further plead, the bill was dismissed. From the order of dismissal, the above children interests appealed.

Several months later, the court entered an order on the above intervention by the state, on a petition by the trustees for directions as to distribution of the trust estate and on petitions of various beneficiaries under the trust for distribution. Among other things, this order was that the intervention be dismissed without prejudice and that the above six and two-thirds interests in the trust estate be delivered over by the trustees to the executor of the mother's estate. From that portion of the order requiring delivery of their interests in the trust estate to the above executor, the owners of such interests bring this appeal.

Prior to hearing of this appeal, this court had acted upon the above appeal from the order dismissing the ancillary and supplemental bill against the state and others. Our decision 62 F.(2d) 150 reversed the order of the trial court. At the time the present appeal was heard, the other appeal was pending on certiorari in the Supreme Court. It was recognized that the decision of the Supreme Court thereon would affect and might determine this appeal; therefore, this appeal was held for that decision. That decision has occurred (290 U. S. 18, 54 S. Ct. 18, 78 L. Ed. ___) and, we think, determines this...