Husser v. Markham
Decision Date | 05 April 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 21048.,21048. |
Citation | 210 S.W.2d 405 |
Parties | HUSSER v. MARKHAM. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Division No. 9, Jackson County; Ben Terte, Judge.
Action by Belle Husser against Charles H. Markham, executor under the will of Blanche Markham, deceased, for construction of the will. From a judgment dismissing the petition and dismissing the cause of action, the plaintiff appeals, and the defendant moves to dismiss the appeal.
Motion to dismiss appeal denied, and judgment affirmed.
Robert M. Murray, of Kansas City, for appellant.
Carl E. Kimpton and Hogsett, Trippe, Depping & Houts, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
BOYER, Commissioner.
In the above entitled cause plaintiff sought judicial construction of the last will and testament of Blanche Markham, deceased. The will in its entirety is set forth in the petition and omitting the attesting clause, it reads as follows:
The petition states that Blanche Markham, a resident of Jackson County, Missouri, died in said county on or about the 8th day of August 1946; that she executed the foregoing will which was duly admitted to probate in said county, and that Charles H. Markham is the duly appointed, qualified and acting executor; that plaintiff is a sister of the deceased and one of the legatees. The petition charges that the provisions of the will are inconsistent, confusing, and misleading and make it impossible to ascertain the real intent of the testatrix; that unless the various provisions thereof are interpreted and construed separately and the meaning of the will as a whole properly determined the executor, plaintiff believes, will dissipate the whole of said estate to the irreparable injury and damage of the other named legatees. The alleged inconsistent and misleading provisions are said to inhere particularly in paragraph 3 of the will, and in reference to the life estate created by its provisions. Specific terms of said paragraph are quoted which are said to be inconsistent with each other and ambiguous, and require interpretation and limitation to effectuate the true intention of the testatrix and to preserve the assets of the estate. Plaintiff prayed the court to declare a specific meaning to be attached to certain words, terms, and phrases of the will and in effect to declare under what circumstances the defendant could use the corpus of the life estate.
Defendant presented and filed his written motion to dismiss the petition for various reasons, and in part because the petition on its face shows that no ambiguity or inconsistency exists in the will; that the intent of the testatrix is plain; that the will does not require construction, and that the petition fails to state a claim against defendant upon which relief can be granted. Upon consideration and decision of said motion on the 9th day of October, 1947, the court entered the following judgment:
Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial and moved the court to set aside the judgment rendered, partly because the court erred in holding that plaintiff's petition did not state sufficient facts upon which to base a cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. This motion was overruled October 15, 1947, and plaintiff in time filed the following notice of appeal:
"Notice is hereby given that Belle Husser, the above named plaintiff, hereby appeals to the Kansas City Court of Appeals from the judgment overruling plaintiff's motion for a new trial, entered in this cause in Division No. 9 of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, at Kansas City on October 15, 1947."
Respondent has moved for a dismissal of the appeal for the reason that the appeal is not taken from a final judgment or an appealable order. It is conceded that the notice of appeal is sufficient in form if there is in fact a final judgment, and such is the law as heretofore declared. Terry v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Mo. App., 206 S.W.2d 724; Weller v. Hayes Truck Lines, 355 Mo. 695, 197 S.W.2d 657. Respondent insists that the judgment of dismissal was not a final judgment because it does not appear from the record that plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to amend her petition or that she refused to proceed further. It is suggested that the same ruling should be made here as that made by the Springfield Court of Appeals in Edwards v. Sittner, Mo.App., 206 S.W.2d 578, and by this court in Juvenal v. Heim et al., 238 Mo.App. 217, 177 S.W.2d 672. In both of these cases the appeals were dismissed in accordance with previous adjudications that the mere sustaining of a demurrer to the petition or motion to dismiss was not a final judgment.
We think these cases are distinguishable from the case in hand upon the records and rules of procedure in the respective cases. In the Edwards case, on page 580 of 206 S.W.2d of the opinion, is this statement: "The record does not show that plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend, neither does it show that he refused to proceed further and that a final judgment was rendered." It does not appear from the record in that case that the plaintiff filed any motion or took any action of any character except to appeal from a mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heard v. Frye's Estate
...ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Shultz, 241 Mo.App. 570, 243 S.W.2d 808; Runnion v. Paquet, Mo.App., 233 S.W.2d 803; Husser v. Markham, Mo.App., 210 S.W.2d 405; Mansfield v. Veach, 240 Mo.App. 617, 212 S.W.2d 90; Granger v. Barber, Mo., 236 S.W.2d ...
-
Magruder v. Magruder
...by construction of its clear terms through the imposition of a trust. The situation before us is closely analogous to Husser v. Markham, 210 S.W.2d 405 (Mo.App.1948). There, the terms of a will devised a life estate to the husband in real estate where the husband was to be the sole judge of......
- Husser v. Markham
-
Anderson v. Kansas City Baseball Club
...taken. Laws 1943, p. 385, Sec. 101, Mo.R.S.A. Sec. 847.101; State ex rel. McMonigle v. Spears, 358 Mo. 23, 213 S.W.2d 210; Husser v. Markham, Mo.App., 210 S.W.2d 405. The petition prayed damages in the amount of $10,000.00. Jurisdiction is in this Court because of the amount The petition al......