Hess v. Sandner
| Decision Date | 04 March 1918 |
| Citation | 198 S.W. 1125,198 Mo.App. 636 |
| Parties | CHAS. P. HESS, Attorney in Fact for ANNA JANE GLEASON et al., Appellant, v. ANNA SANDNER, Executrix of the Estate of FREDERICK SANDNER, Deceased, Respondent |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Macon Circuit Court.--Hon. Vernon L. Drain, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Nat M Shelton, James Whitecotton and Lacy & Shelton for appellant.
Andrew Field, Webb M. Rubey and Guthrie & Franklin for respondent.
This was an action brought in the probate court to establish a demand of $ 598 against the estate of Frederick Sandner deceased. The proceeding is in behalf of the widow and adult children of Nicholas Sandner, deceased, who was a son of the decedent Frederick Sandner. The estate contended that the matter was cognizable only in a court of equity and that for this reason the probate court had no jurisdiction. This contention was overruled and a hearing of the case resulted in an allowance of the demand. The estate appealed to the circuit court and there filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the probate court had no jurisdiction and that none could be acquired by the circuit court on appeal. This motion was sustained and the cause dismissed. From which dismissal the case comes here on appeal.
In order that the nature of the action may appear, a statement of the allegations in the petition is necessary. It alleges that Frederick Sandner in his lifetime owned 280 acres of land and, wishing to dispose of and divide the same among his children, he sold it to his son John F. Sandner for $ 11,200 to be distributed between all of his children, the children of his dead son Nicholas to receive their father's share.
That on September 17, 1913, said Frederick Sandner entered into a written contract with said John F. Sandner which contract was set out in haec verba. The contract thus pleaded and set up is signed by Frederick Sandner and John F. Sandner. It states that the former has this day conveyed to the latter the 280-acre farm, describing it, and that the consideration is $ 11,200; that the deed to said farm is deposited with the Rubey Trust Company of Macon, Missouri, to be held in escrow until March 1, 1914, at which time the Trust Company is directed to deliver it to the grantee upon the payment by him to said Trust Company of $ 9351 to be immediately paid by it to the following persons and in the sums as follows:
Said contract further states that Trust Company was not to deliver the deed until it had received the above amounts and that if the said John F. Sandner failed to pay the $ 9351 to the Trust Company on or before March 15, 1914, then the latter was to surrender the deed to the grantor or his legal representative. Then follows the signatures of the parties to the contract.
The petition then alleged that "it was the aim and intention of Frederick Sandner to divide the purchase money of said farm equally among his children and that in order to do so he took in consideration the various amounts advanced by him to each individual child, and, under the contract aforesaid, ordered the Rubey Trust Company to pay each of his children the sums designated in said contract, and on account of three of the children of Nicholas Sandner being minors and having no guardian, he, the said Frederick Sandner, made the amount due to the children of Nicholas Sandner to be paid to him, the said Frederick Sandner, by said Rubey Trust Company, to be paid by him to the children of said Nicholas Sandner."
The petition then alleged that the Trust Company fully complied with all the conditions of the contract and paid each party named therein the amount due "and did pay to Frederick Sandner the sum of twelve hundred and ninety-eight ($ 1298) dollars to be held in trust for children of Nicholas Sandner, deceased, to be paid to them by said Frederick Sandner."
The petition then alleged that "in compliance with said trust" said Frederick Sandner paid to the widow of Nicholas Sandner, for the use of the three minor children of said Nicholas Sandner, the sum of $ 700 on October 14, 1914, "but made no further payment to any of the other children and plaintiffs in this cause."
The petition then charged that the defendant as executrix of said estate "took possession of said trust fund" and holds possession of the sum of $ 598 which is due to the adult children of Nicholas Sandner, wherefore judgment was prayed for this amount.
It has been frequently held that the Constitution and statutes of the State give probate courts jurisdiction over the allowance of any demand against the estates of deceased persons, and that this is broad enough to include "demands of what every nature whether legal or equitable." [Hammons v. Renfrow, 84 Mo. 332; Maginn v. Green, 67 Mo.App. 616; Hoffmann v Hoffmann, 126 Mo. 486, 29 S.W. 603; Grimes v. Reynolds, 94 Mo.App. 576, 68 S.W. 588; Lietman v. Lietman, 149 Mo. 112, 50 S.W. 307; Jarboe v. Jarboe, 227 Mo. 59, 127 S.W. 26.] But it will be noticed that this phrase is used in reference to claims wherein there is the element of debtor and creditor between the estate and the claimant whether such debt arises in law or in equity. In other words the function of the probate court is to adjudicate and allow claims which, by virtue of either legal or equitable principles, can be regarded as a debt due the claimant and the latter can be viewed in the light of a creditor of the estate. And in the determination of these matters, as well as in the settlement and distribution of the estate, the probate court is fully vested with power to adopt and apply equitable principles. But this does not mean that a probate court can be turned into a court of equity and exercise the jurisdiction of such a court in behalf of a claimant who does not stand in the relation of a creditor to the estate but comes merely as the cestui que trust of a trust fund of which the decedent is alleged to be the trustee, and the existence of which is not conceded but which can be established, if at all, only by a court of equity. An examination of the facts in the cases herein above cited will disclose that in every one of them the estate had received the property of another or of the claimant under circumstances which either in law or equity established the relation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial