Huegel v. Huegel
| Decision Date | 06 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 31228 |
| Citation | 46 S.W.2d 157,329 Mo. 571 |
| Parties | Louis J. Huegel et al. v. Mary M. Huegel, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cole Circuit Court; Hon. W. S. Stillwell Judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
Ira H. Lohman, Clark, Boggs, Cave & Peterson and Harry T. Limerick, Jr., for appellant.
(1) The parties to a suit to contest a will cannot stipulate to set aside the will as not the will of the testator. A judgment based on such stipulation is void. (a) Parties to a will contest cannot stipulate to set aside a will, as it is contrary to the established public policy embodied in the legislative enactments. Secs. 517, 518, 519, 520, 306, 528, 531-534, 4209, R. S. 1929; In re Estate of Jacob Rahn v Martin, 291 S.W. 120, 51 A. L. R. 877; Re Estate of Edith Wilkins, 211 N.W. 652, 51 A. L. R. 1106; Will of Daris 135 Wis. 457, 15 Ann. Cas. 740; Cowie v. Strohmeyer, 136 N.W. 956. (b) The probate of a will affects many interests other than those of the litigants. Watson v. Alderson, 146 Mo. 333; Teckenbrock v. McLaughlin, 246 Mo. 711. (c) The probate of a will is an action in rem. Benoist v. Murrin, 48 Mo. 48; McMahon v. McMahon, 100 Mo. 97; Cash v. Lust, 142 Mo. 630; State ex rel. v. Guinotte, 156 Mo. 513; Hogan v. Hinchey, 195 Mo. 527; State v. Gideon, 237 S.W. 220; Frazier v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 39 Mich. 198; 4 Schouler on "Law of Wills, Executors, and Administrators" (6 Ed.) 2656. (2) The court erred in entering the judgment without evidence of the execution of the will. Sec. 537, R. S. 1929; Hogan v. Hinchey, 195 Mo. 527; McMahon v. McMahon, 100 Mo. 97; State ex rel. v. McQuillin, 246 Mo. 674. (3) The court erred in finding that the stipulation was binding on the appellant, Mary Huegel when respondents, after filing of said stipulation, amended their petition in case No. 5374 and added a new count to their petition which was not in the original petition when the stipulation was signed, and upon which the case was decided. Gary Realty Co. v. Kelly, 214 S.W. 92.
Irwin & Bushman, H. P. Lauf and L. H. Cook for respondents.
(1) Agreements to defeat or suppress the probate of a will are valid where made by all the parties and where free from fraud. Stringfellow v. Early, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 597, 40 S.W. 871; Phillips v. Phillips, 8 Watts (Pa.) 563; Knight v. Knight, 113 Ala. 597, 21 So. 407; Apgar v. Connell, 140 N.Y.S. 705, 79 Misc. 531; Harris v. Harris, 99 So. 916; Cole v. Cole, 126 N.W. 756; Adams v. Adams, 70 Iowa 253; McDole v. Kingsley, 163 Ill. 433; Hicks v. Wynn, 137 Va. 186; 28 R. C. L. 357; Parker v. Broadus, 91 So. 395; Dudgeon v. Dudgeon, 177 S.W. 403. (2) In Missouri there is no case on all-fours with the case at issue, but stipulations are as binding in a will contest suit as in any other, except that a stipulation for dismissal cannot be enforced only for the reason that the purpose of the stipulation cannot be carried out by dismissal. McMahon v. McMahon, 100 Mo. 99; State ex rel. v. McQuillen, 246 Mo. 688; Benoist v. Murrin, 48 Mo. 54; Hogan v. Hinchey, 195 Mo. 533. (3) The stipulation was to abide the result of the other suit, not the manner in which it was reached. Hanchett Bond Co. v. Glore, 208 Mo.App. 172; Heirs of Watrous v. McKee, 54 Tex. 71; Jarrett v. McLaughlin, 51 S.E. 329. (a) Surrounding circumstances may be looked to in order to arrive at the true meaning and intention of the parties. Hanchett Bond Co. v. Glore, 208 Mo.App. 172; Abbott v. Lane, 95 N.W. 597. (b) A party cannot be relieved from binding force of stipulation if he has been guilty of laches. 36 Cyc. 1296; In re Callahan, 174 N.Y.S. 268.
Atwood, J. All concur, except Henwood, J., not sitting.
ATWOOD
This is a suit brought by Louis J. Huegel, Charles P. Huegel, Lawrence B. Huegel, Henry O. Huegel, Eugene W. Huegel, Josephine Huegel Kirkpatrick, and Mary Elinor Huegel, by her next friend, Lawrence B. Huegel, the sole surviving heirs at law of Joseph A. Huegel, deceased, against Mary M. Huegel, to set aside his will in which she is named as the principal beneficiary. The petition was filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, on January 19, 1927, and is based solely on allegations to the effect that said will was procured by means of undue influence exercised over Joseph A. Huegel by the said Mary M. Huegel, who was then his wife.
On March 10, 1927, the above named heirs and Chet A. Platt administrator pendente lite of the estate of said Joseph A. Huegel, deceased, filed suit against the said Mary M. Huegel in said circuit court to set aside a transfer of stock in the Central Hotel Company made to her by the said Joseph A. Huegel, on the ground that "the possession of said stock and the apparent ownership thereof by said Mary M. Huegel was procured from the said Joseph A. Huegel by means of fraud and undue influence committed by the said Mary M. Huegel over the mind and will of the said Joseph A. Huegel," all as more fully set forth in plaintiffs' petition.
On June 8, 1927, a stipulation signed as of June 7, 1927, by counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for defendant in both suits, was filed in the will contest suit, the provisions thereof pertinent to this appeal being as follows:
On December 9, 1927, on the trial of the suit to set aside the stock transfer, and after all the evidence was considered by the court and both parties had rested their case, plaintiffs asked leave to amend their petition by adding a second count pleading the single cause of action that defendant held said stock "in trust for the use and benefit of the said Joseph A. Huegel, his personal representative and heirs, the plaintiffs herein." Such leave was granted and, after defendant filed answer to plaintiffs' amended petition, the court found defendant to be "the owner in trust for the use and benefit of the estate of Joseph A. Huegel of said stock," and adjudged that the transfer of said "stock of the Central Hotel Company made by Joseph A. Huegel to Mary M. Huegel, be declared a trust for the use and benefit of the estate of Joseph A. Huegel, and that said transfer of said stock be set aside and the title thereto be vested in Chester A. Platt, Administrator Pendente Lite of the Estate of Joseph A. Huegel and that the plaintiffs have and recover of and from the defendant the cost of this suit." On defendant's appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri this judgment was affirmed October 14, 1930. [326 Mo. 776, 32 S.W.2d 605.]
Thereafter, on December 1, 1930, plaintiffs in the will contest suit filed motion therein, in the Circuit Court of Cole County, where said cause was then pending, for judgment in accordance with the above mentioned stipulation. On December 4, 1930, defendant filed motion to set aside said stipulation. Thereafter, on December 26, 1930, the court overruled defendant's said motion, defendant excepting thereto, and rendered judgment sustaining plaintiff's motion for judgment in accordance with said stipulation, and adjudging that "the instrument admitted to probate by the Probate Court of Cole County, Missouri, on the 20th day of December, 1926, as the last will and testament of Joseph A. Huegel, deceased, is not the last will and testament of said Joseph A. Huegel, deceased." From this judgment defendant has appealed.
Defendant alleged in her motion for a new trial, and her counsel now urge, that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to set aside the stipulation and in sustaining plaintiffs' motion for judgment in accordance with said stipulation, for the reason that after the stipulation was signed plaintiffs were permitted to amend their petition in the stock transfer case by adding thereto a second count stating a cause of action not appearing in the original petition, and upon which the case was decided. Before ruling this point it may be well to state some generally recognized principles governing stipulations filed in suits pending.
"Stipulations are regarded as proceedings in the cause, and as such are under the supervision of the court." [36 Cyc. 1280; Galbreath v. Rogers, 30 Mo.App. 401, 406.] "The rule is generally recognized that parties to a suit or their attorneys may enter into a valid agreement that the judgment or decree in that suit shall be the same as, or determined by the judgment or decree in, another which is of the same character and involves the same issues or interests." [25 R. C. L. sec. 9, p. 1101.] "The rules applicable to the construction of contracts generally govern the courts in their interpretation of stipulations, and thus stipulations will receive a reasonable construction with a view to effecting the intent of the parties; but in seeking the intention of the parties, the language used will not be so...
To continue reading
Request your trial