Guy v. Mayes

• Decision Date: 20 June 1911
• Parties: GUY et al. v. MAYES et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

138 S.W. 510

235 Mo. 390

GUY et al. v. MAYES et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 20, 1911.

1. WILLS (§ 686)—CONSTRUCTION—RESIDUARY CLAUSE.

Where testator, after devising land to trustees for an improvident son with provision for reversion on death without issue 21 years old, declared that all the rest of his estate should be sold and equally divided between his wife and children, after giving his daughter $900, if he should not pay her that sum before he died, and then declared that whatever should be coming to such son should be placed in the hands of his trustees for his benefit and support, the improvident's share of real estate vesting in him under the residuary clause was not limited to a life estate, but amounted to a fee.

2. TRUSTS (§ 198)—PURCHASE BY TRUSTEE—VALIDITY.

A purchase of trust property by a trustee is voidable only at the instance of the injured party, or some one standing in his position.

3. TRUSTS (§ 198)—PURCHASE BY TRUSTEE— VALIDITY.

Where certain property left for the support and maintenance of a spendthrift son by his father was purchased by the trustee after consulting with one of the spendthrift's brothers on receiving his verbal approval, and the trustee thereafter used much more than the value of the land in caring for and trying to reform the spendthrift, and there was no evidence of fraud or overreaching, the conveyance would not be set aside at the instance of his heirs.

4. PARTITION (§ 83)—ISSUES—VALIDITY OF DEED.

In an action at law for partition, the validity of a deed of property bequeathed in trust for a spendthrift by the latter to his trustee cannot be assailed.

5. PARTITION (§ 83)—ISSUES—RELIEF DEMANDED.

Where all the heirs of a deceased beneficiary under a will were before the court in an action for partition, but none of them set up any claim to a lien because of an unpaid bequest to one of them, it was error to decree a lien on the property to be sold for the beneficiary's heirs to the extent of the bequest.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; David H. Eby, Judge.

Partition by James E. Guy and another against Gordon Mayes and others. From a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Modified and affirmed.

This appeal is taken from a decree awarding to defendants a larger interest in the property than plaintiffs' petition concedes them to have.

The issues tendered, or attempted to be tendered in this case, turn upon the construction of the will of one John R. Guy, which is as follows: "First. I desire all my just debts fully paid.

"Second. I give and bequeath to my beloved wife, Elizabeth S. Guy, the home place where we now live near Paynesville, Mo., containing one acre of land with all and singular thereto pertaining which I value at two thousand dollars, charged in my book.

"Third. I give my son, Wm. Mc. Guy, one hundred acres of land, as per deed given to him, valued at $2,000.00, charged in my book.

"Fourth. I give my son, James E. Guy, one hundred acres of land as per deed given to him, which I value at $2,000.00, charged in my book.

"Fifth. I give and bequeath to my son John W. Guy, to be placed in the hands of trustees, viz.: Wm. Mc. Guy and Stephen Mayes, one hundred acres of land, just south of Guinn's creek, and west of Nimrod Guy's land, and east of James E. Guy's land and to run south far enough to make one hundred acres of land, which I value at $2,000.00. And I desire that he shall have a piece of land south of the above described land, say 30 or 40 acres, at what it may be worth, at the distribution of my estate, all placed in the hands of his trustees. If he and his child or children should die before the children arrive of age, then his part to go back to my estate.

"Sixth. I have given my daughter, Susanna Mayes, this amount, $1100.00, for which I have charged her.

"Seventh. I desire that all the rest of my estate, both real and personal shall be sold and equally divided between my wife and children, after giving Susanna Mayes $900.00, if I shall not pay her that sum before I die.

"Eighth. I desire that whatever may be coming to my son, John W. Guy, shall be placed in the hands of his trustees for his benefit and support.

"Ninth. I hereby appoint my two sons, viz.: Wm. Mc. Guy and James E. Guy and my son-in-law, Stephen Mayes, executors of this, my last will and testament."

James R. Guy, the testator, died in 1892. His widow, Elizabeth Guy, died in 1901, and John W. Guy, one of his three sons, died intestate and without issue about the year 1903. The daughter, Susanna Guy Mayes, also died intestate, leaving seven children, to wit, Gordon Mayes, Arch Mayes, G. H. Mayes, Birdie M. Fry (intermarried with Joseph C. Fry), Estelle Cox (intermarried with Bert Cox), Clifton Mills, (intermarried with Clarence Mills), and Sue Guy Mayes, a minor. These children of Susanna Mayes, with A. J. Forgey, trustee of Mrs. Fry, and Stephen Mayes, curator of Sue Guy Mayes, are the defendants in this action; while James E. Guy and William Mack Guy, the two surviving sons of the testator, are the plaintiffs.

This action mainly involves the construction of the seventh, or residuary clause of the aforesaid will, whereby the testator, John R. Guy, devised about 590 acres of land in Pike and Lincoln counties to his widow, daughter, and three sons in equal shares. The property devised by the other clauses of this will is not in dispute in this action. John W. Guy, deceased (one of the testator's sons), was a drunkard and spendthrift; and for this reason testator made William Mack Guy, his brother, and Stephen Mayes, his brother-in-law, trustees of the property devised to him, as recited in the will. William Mack Guy refused to act as trustee for his spendthrift brother; and while his brother-in-law, Stephen Mayes, did not give bond as trustee, he seems to have supervised the property of John W. Guy, and also to have looked after his many personal needs, until his death. John W. Guy, the spendthrift, was sent to Dwight, where he took the "whisky cure," and, after that, remained sober for three years, and, as he desired to go into business, his trustee, Mayes, in order to furnish him money to go into the butcher business, purchased his interest in the 590 acres in controversy at the price of $1,250. The trustee, Mayes, used $700 of the purchase money in setting up said John W. Guy in the butcher business; and the remainder of said purchase money in the care and support of said spendthrift during the remainder of his life. The interest in the said 590 acres which was thus purchased of John W. Guy was conveyed by Stephen Mayes to Elizabeth Guy, the mother of the plaintiffs, and by her devised to Birdie M. Fry her granddaughter (one of the defendants in this cause).

Plaintiffs contend that the conveyance from John W. Guy to Stephen Mayes, his trustee, is absolutely void, by reason of the fiduciary relations of said trustee to said John W. Guy at the time said deed was made. Plaintiffs also insist that the will of their ancestor only vested in John W. Guy a life estate in the 590 acres in controversy, and that, upon the death of said spendthrift, his interest in the land in controversy descended to the plaintiffs, his brothers, and to his nephews and nieces, defendants herein. In their petition plaintiffs do not attack the validity of the...