In re Aiken's Estate
Decision Date | 01 May 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 20312.,20312. |
Citation | 5 S.W.2d 662 |
Parties | In re AIKEN'S ESTATE. SHAW v. TRUSTEES OF CONFERENCE FUND. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
On exceptions to the final settlement of James W. Shaw, executor of the estate of Elizabeth Aiken, deceased. From an order of the probate court upholding the settlement, the Trustees of Conference Fund and others appeal to circuit court. From a judgment in favor of the Trustees of Conference Fund, James W. Shaw, executor, appealed to the Supreme Court (297 S. W. 953). Case transferred to St. Louis Court of Appeals. Affirmed.
Ras Pearson, of Louisiana, Mo., for appellant.
W. O. Gray and Hostetter & Haley, all of Bowling Green, for respondent.
This proceeding originated in the probate court of Pike county, upon exceptions filed to the final settlement of James W. Shaw, executor of the estate of Elizabeth Aiken, deceased. From an order of the probate court upholding the settlement as made, the exceptors appealed to the circuit court, wherein, after a trial before the court alone, a jury having been waived, judgment was rendered in favor of one of the exceptors, from which the executor, Shaw, appealed.
The facts disclosed that Elizabeth Aiken died leaving a will, the sixth clause of which read as follows:
When the executor filed his final settlement, it was shown by one item thereof that the residuary estate had amounted to $3,782.31, which sum he had paid to D. A. Ball and others, trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Louisiana, Mo., and had taken their receipt therefor. Such final settlement having been approved by the probate court, the executor was discharged. During the same term, however, the respondent, a Missouri corporation, styled "Trustees of Conference Fund," and a Tennessee corporation denominated "Board of Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South," filed separate exceptions to the final settlement; each of such corporations claiming to be the residuary legatee under the will, and alleging that Ball and his associates, to whom the fund had been paid, were trustees merely of the local church proper at Louisiana, and were not the legatees to whom the bequest was payable.
After a trial of the issues, the circuit court sustained the exceptions filed by "Trustees of Conference Fund," and directed the executor to pay over the amount of the residuary estate to such corporation, from which judgment the executor perfected his appeal to the Supreme Court, upon the ground, among others, that respondent, "Trustees of Conference Fund," was precluded from receiving the bequest, and had no legal existence, under the provisions of section 8, article 2, of the Constitution of Missouri, which defines the purposes for which religious corporations may be established. The Supreme Court, however, found that the constitutional question so raised had not been injected into the case in timely manner, so as to have preserved it for appellate review, and, upon its refusal to entertain jurisdiction of the appeal, ordered the case to be transferred here. In re Aiken's Estate (Mo. Sup.) 297 S. W. 953.
Inasmuch as the record shows that neither Ball and his fellow trustees of the local church at Louisiana, nor the other exceptor, "Board of Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South," have seen fit to appeal from the court's finding and judgment, and in view of the holding of the Supreme Court that there is no live constitutional question in the case, there is nothing left for us to determine but the matter of the propriety of the judgment of the circuit court sustaining the exceptions filed by respondent, "Trustees of Conference Fund," to the final settlement of the executor. Futhermore, since the cause was submitted to the court sitting as a jury, and no declarations of law were either asked or given, the judgment rendered by the court must be affirmed, if it may be sustained upon any theory in the case, supported by substantial evidence. Zeitinger v. Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co., 298 Mo. 461, 250 S. W. 913; Falvey v. Hicks, 315 Mo. 442, 286 S. W. 385; Heckman v. Van Graafeiland (Mo. App.) 291 S. W. 190; Babel v. Ransdell (Mo. App.) 294 S. W. 734.
Briefly stated, the evidence disclosed that, under the rules of the church, it is incumbent upon each annual conference to designate its superannuated preachers, and to make provision for their support, such matter to be under the control of a board of finance, appointed by the conference, to which the assessments levied upon the local congregations are paid, and by which the sums so received are in turn distributed to the superannuated preachers, and widows and orphans of deceased members of the conference, according to their several necessities. Thus it would seem to appear conclusively that the duty of supporting and maintaining superannuated preachers devolved solely upon the conference as a whole, and was a matter outside and beyond the province and authority of a local church or its trustees.
On the other hand, article 3 of the articles of incorporation of respondent, "Trustees of Conference Fund," expressly provides that the object and purpose of such corporation shall be to receive all donations of money or property, and all bequests and devises of money, property, or real estate, made for the benefit of the widows and orphans of deceased preachers, and the superannuated preachers of the Missouri conference of the church, and to keep and invest all such sums of money for the use of said widows, orphans, and superannuated preachers, under the direction of the conference, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sims v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
...283 Mo. 601, 223 S.W. 645; Mockbee v. Grooms, 300 Mo. 446, 254 S.W. 170; Plummer v. Roberts, 315 Mo. 627, 287 S.W. 316; In re Aiken's Estate (Mo. App.), 5 S.W.2d 662.] course it must be understood that such extrinsic evidence is admissible, not for the purpose of contradicting or varying th......
-
Norris v. Bristow
... ... lacked testamentary capacity. Loud v. St. Louis Union ... Trust Co., 249 S.W. 629; In re Aikens Estate, 5 ... S.W.2d 662; Aurien v. Security Natl. Bank Sav. & Trust ... Co., 137 S.W.2d 679; Neibling v. Methodist Orphans ... Home Assn., ... ...
-
Lehmann v. Griffin
... ... (1) In ... the wording of this will there was an express direction for ... the executor to sell the real estate, and under the ... construction of the courts in this State in such cases, the ... executor received the real estate as personal property. And ... used in other parts and giving effect as viewed from the ... standpoint of the testator. In re Aikens Estate, 5 ... S.W.2d 662. The testator's intention if not contrary to ... public policy or established rule of the law controls, as is ... ...
-
Liggett v. Liggett
... ... Crowson, 18 S.W.2d 634; ... Larsen v. Hansen, 12 S.W.2d 505; Snow v ... Ferril, 8 S.W.2d 1008; Shaw v. Aiken's ... Estate, 5 S.W.2d 662; Sorenson v. Booram, 297 ... S.W. 70; Austin v. Collins, 297 S.W. 36; ... Arrowood v. Delaney's Estate, 295 S.W. 522; ... ...