Hodge v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.

Decision Date04 March 1924
Docket NumberNo. 23913.,23913.
Citation261 S.W. 67
PartiesHODGE v. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; V. H. Falkenhainer, Judge.

Proceeding by Julia F. Hodge against the St. Louis Union Trust Company, executor of the last will of Mary G. Van Blarcom, deceased, for allowance of claim. Judgment for claimant on appeal from judgment of probate, allowing claim, and executor appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Bryan, Williams & Cave, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Boyle & Priest and G. T. Priest, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

HIGBEE, C.

The plaintiff filed in the probate court of the city of St. Louis, a statement of an account as follows:

                Estate of Mary G. Van Blarcom to Julia F. Hodge
                Personal services rendered to Mrs. Mary
                  G. Van Blarcom, beginning in the year
                  1908 and continuing to the date of her
                  death in 1921.......................... $20,000 00
                

On appeal from the judgment in the probate court allowing the claim in full, a trial was had in the circuit court resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $20,000, from which the defendant appealed.

Miss Hodge was a relative of Mrs. Van Blarcom. She lived in Bloomington, Ill., and when a child, as early as 1899, began making visits at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Van Blarcom in the city of St. Louis. Mr. Van Blarcom, a prominent banker, and his wife were leaders in social life and gave balls and receptions in honor of the plaintiff. They were very fond of her and made a joint will in which they made a provision of $15,000 for her, contingent, however, on the prior death of their only child, Frederick, whose mind was disturbed, and who finally became insane. The death of Mr. Van Blarcom in August, 1908, together with her son's malady, so profoundly affected Mrs. Van Blarcom that she ceased her social activities and thereafter, until her death in March, 1921, saw only a few people—Miss Hodge, Miss Cummings, Mrs. Gray, Mr. Moloney, Mr. Beardsley, Mr. Gleason, and some servants. From the time of her husband's death until her own death, Mrs. Van Blarcom felt the need of the plaintiff's companionship, and, at Mrs. Van Blarcom's request, the plaintiff frequently "visited at her house, spending as much as four or five months each year with her. Plaintiff also made trips to Washington, D. C., at Mrs. Van Blarcom's request, to see her son who was in an asylum. Mrs. Van Blarcom frequently discussed with her attorney, Mr. Moloney, the making of a provision for the plaintiff. She told him that Miss Hodge's income was meager and "that she wanted Miss Hodge to have out of her interest sufficient to hold her between $100 and $150 per month; she thought she would need that for her personal maintenance." Mr. Moloney testified:

"Well, our discussions were so frequent I can't enumerate them or each particular one, but she told me that she had frequently discussed with Miss Hodge the making of this provision for her. She told me that she wanted to compensate Miss Hodge for the services she had rendered. She says no daughter could be more dutiful; she was always ready to answer. Miss Hodge (Mrs. Van Blarcom?) called her up over the long distance telephone and told her to come to St. Louis or telegraphed her, wired her, to come to Washington and she always answered these requests. * * * Well, she asked Miss Hodge—she told me that she had asked Miss Hodge not to pursue any remunerative employment so that she could always be there to come down to St. Louis, or to go on these trips to Washington while Fred was there at any time she requested it."

Mrs. Van Blarcom continued to consult her attorney about making a provision for plaintiff until shortly before her death. Mr. Moloney had to go to Washington and deferred the matter until his return, when it was too late; Mrs. Van Blarcom was dying.

The difficulty in making provision for Miss Hodge seemed to be that Mrs. Van Blarcom was unable to set apart to her interest-bearing bonds, as she, Mrs. Van Blarcom, needed the interest as it matured for her own support. Mr. Moloney expected to find the bonds in her safe, marked as plaintiff's property, until he and Miss Hodge went to the bank after Mrs. Van Blarcom's death and found the bonds had not been so set apart.

In the discussions with Mr. Moloney, Mrs. Van Blarcom never mentioned having given anything to plaintiff nor having furnished her clothes or bought anything for her as a present. She several times mentioned reimbursing Miss Hodge for expenditures she had made. Mrs. Van Blarcom kept no cash in her house for fear of being robbed, and did all her business with checks. She never mentioned to Moloney that she had given checks to Miss Hodge in payment for her services. The witness, Moloney, continued:

"The arrangement she discussed with me—the whole arrangement contemplated payment in full up to the date of her death, because it was to become effective—the payment was to be made as of her death, so it covered prospective services as well as past.

"Q. Do you know whether or not Miss Hodge ever went any place for her? A. Oh, she, always Mrs. Van Blarcom would send her down town to my office or on errands and down town and ask her to get different—make different purchases. * * * Well that is the way she ran her household. She would send persons on errands and they would spend their own money and then when they would come back with a report of what they had spent, she would draw her check to reimburse them for that amount."

Miss Cummings was intimate with the Van Blarcom household from 1898 until Mrs. Van Blarcom's death. She testified in part:

"Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mrs. Van Blarcom relative to her finances with Miss Hodge? A. She talked to me very freely about it. She evidently felt a great—she said: `Miss Cummings, I feel that Miss Hodge is doing for me, in her trips to Washington, what no one else could do, and I am going to pay her for it. I can't—I will have to wait,' and it troubled her so. She also talked over with me the various plans and explained her intentions to put the bonds aside; later explained why Mr. Moloney did not deem that advisable, and evidently all through the last years of her life. She said that she felt that she must find a plan, but that she couldn't pay—afford to pay Miss Hodge, that she was paying all of her expenses in Washington and the expense while she was there, but that she couldn't pay any thing else at that time, she felt because she have it, and it would have to wait until later.

"Q. Did she ever speak of this as a gift to Miss Hodge? A. No. * * *

"Q. What did she say in regard to her sense of obligation? A. She said, `Miss Hodge is for me what not even you can do.' She is to her—`she is fond of my son. He has been very fond of her. She is adapted to my principles. She is able to do what no one else I know can do; besides that, she comes to see me and I talk over everything with her before she goes, and again after she returns, and I can't pay her for it now and I feel it.

"Q. Did she ever express her mind to you otherwise as to her feelings towards Miss Hodge? A. You mean in the opposite direction as not wanting to?

"Q. No; as getting consolation out of her companionship and society or anything like that? A. Oh, yes. She told me that next to her son, Miss Hodge was the one who gave most to her, and she asked me—had me sit down and write, but not her last illness, to Miss Hodge, to come immediately and hurry up, Miss Hodge coming then.

"Q. Did she on more than one occasion have you summon Miss Hodge? A. Yes; she used to have me write to Miss Hodge. I did the entire correspondence there.

"Q. Would that be at times that she would be despondent or feel in need of especial companionship and things like that? A. Yes; and when she was feeling physically well too she would want Miss Hodge with her.

"Q. And were you in position to see what effect, if anything, Miss Hodge's presence would have on Mrs. Van Blarcom? A. Oh, yes; I was there when Miss Hodge came during Mrs. Van Blarcom's last illness, and she was filled with joy to think that she was there.

"Q. Now, when she spoke to you about this arrangement, did she speak about it more than once? A. Yes.

"Q. Was it a subject that was frequent in her mind? A. Yes.

"Q. Did she speak to you about it anywhere shortly prior to her death? * * * A. Yes; I don't recall definitely the last time that it came up.

"Q. Could you in a general way indicate the last time it came up, say as to whether it was a year prior to her death or two years prior to her death? A. No; I don't really think I know.

"Q. You don't now recall the last time that she talked to you about it? A. No; because she did talk frequently. * * * A. She told me that she had tried to get him (Mr. Moloney). She told me that. And she told me she wanted to talk to him about Miss Hodge and he was out of town and she couldn't get him. Now that was a little while before her last illness.

"Q. That is the last time she spoke to you about the compensation Miss Hodge was to have? A. She told me at one time that she had planned $15,000, but that she would like make it more."

Mrs. Gray, an old friend of Mrs. Van Blarcom's testified:

"Q. On February 28th, will you repeat to us as nearly as you can the substance of the conversation you had with Mrs. Van Blarcom said as soon as Mr. Moloney returned from Washington she intended to arrange for a just compensation for Julia, as she called her, following not only the services in the past, but in the future, for Julia would be her eyes—referring to Mrs Van Blarcom's ill eye—like, too, I said she referred to Julia in the future; she said, `Julia will be my eyes.' * * *

"Q. What did Mrs. Van Blarcom say to you about her eyesight? A. I had requested Mrs. Van Blarcom to refer to some notes that we had previously talked to together, and she told me her eyes...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Lampe v. Franklin American Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1936
    ... ... not have said instructions before it for review. Rule 15, ... Supreme Court; St. Louis v. Realty Co., 48 S.W.2d ... 938; Bellis v. Modern Woodmen, 49 S.W.2d 1059; ... Poindexter v ... plaintiff in the probate court ...          In the ... printed form the "Union National Bank" appeared ... both as the payee and as the place of payment, printed in ... larger ... 1094, 295 S.W. 563; In re ... Trautmann's Estate, 300 Mo. 314, 254 S.W. 286; ... Hodge v. St. Louis Union Trust Co. (Mo.), 261 S.W ... 67; Rice v. Waddill, 168 Mo. 99, 67 S.W. 605; ... ...
  • Wells v. Davis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1924
    ... ... Lusk v ... Ellison, 271 Mo. 463, 473; Fuchs v. St. Louis, ... 167 Mo. 620, 645; American Brewing Assn. v. Talbot, ... 141 Mo ... express trust; and not by virtue of his appointment as such ... administrator, but ... ...
  • Maness v. Graham
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 10, 1940
    ...of O'Harver on that ground by taking his deposition before respondent took the deposition she introduced in evidence. Hodge v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 261 S.W. 67; Bush v. Block, 193 Mo.App. 704, 187 S.W. Rice v. Waddill, 168 Mo. 99, 67 S.W. 605; Alexander v. W. O. W., 193 Mo.App. 411, 1......
  • Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ryan
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1943
    ... ... Louis DistrictJune 8, 1943 ...           ... Appellant's Motion for ... Bank ... of Camden Point (Mo. App.), 141 S.W.2d 86; Hodge v ... St. Louis Union Trust Co. (Mo.), 261 S.W. 67; Rock ... v. Keller, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT