In re Franz' Estate

• Decision Date: 20 April 1939
• Docket Number: 36276
• Citation: 127 S.W.2d 401,344 Mo. 510
• Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of Sophie Franz: the State, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

127 S.W.2d 401

344 Mo. 510

In the Matter of the Estate of Sophie Franz: the State, Appellant

No. 36276

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 20, 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. James M Douglas, Judge.

Affirmed.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Edward H Miller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

(1) A defense of res adjudicata cannot be successfully urged by respondents. State ex rel. Bixby v. St Louis, 241 Mo. 231, 145 S.W. 801; State ex rel Lashly v. Becker, 290 Mo. 560, 235 S.W. 1017; Carr v. United States, 98 U.S. 433; United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 222; Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U.S. 223; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 282. (2) The six and two-thirds remainder interests have been in fact released and extinguished. Byrne v. France, 131 Mo. 647, 33 S.W. 178; R. S. 1929, sec. 2957; Hamilton v. Armstrong, 120 Mo. 624, 25 S.W. 545; Tiffany on Real Property (2 Ed.), p. 1625; Gosney v. Costigan, 326 Mo. 1229, 33 S.W.2d 947; Roethemeier v. Veith, 334 Mo. 1030, 69 S.W.2d 930; 28 C. J. 638, 640; Graham v. Plotner, 151 N.E. 735; Burt v. Second Natl. Bank, 241 Mich. 216, 217 N.W. 71; Grissom v. Sternberger, 10 F.2d 764; Roe v. Roe, 124 So. 734; In re Brady's Estate, 239 N.Y.S. 5, 228 A.D. 56; McCredie v. McCredie, 134 Ore. 517, 294 P. 361; Warner v. Keiser, 177 N.E. 369; In re Trapp's Estate, 269 Ill.App. 269; Carter v. Carter, Mosely, 365, 25 Eng. Reprints 442; Allen v. Papworth, 1 Ves. 163, 27 Eng. Reprints 958; Irwin v. Farrar, 19 Ves. Jr. 86, 34 Eng. Reprints 450; Fortescue v. Gregor, 5 Ves. Jr. 553, 31 Eng. Reprints 734; Burke v. Lambert, 15 Wkly. Rep. 913; Weston v. Second Orthodox Cong. Soc., 79 N.H. 245, 110 A. 137; Dighton v. Tomlinson, 1 Comyns, 194, 92 Eng. Reprints 1030, 10 Mod. 31, 88 Eng. Reprints 612, 1 P. Wms. 149, 24 Eng. Reprints 335, 1 Salk. 239, 91 Eng. Reprints 212; Bruton, 39 Yale Law Journal 854; Mechem, 21 Ill. Law Review 568; 20 Cyc. 1197; 34 Harvard Law Review 664; 28 C. J. 642, 649; Castleman v. Smith, 155 La. 367, 99 So. 293; Tiffany on Real Property (2 Ed.), pp. 1568-70, 1588, 1618; Pray v. Pierce, 7 Mass. 381; Havens v. Sea Shore Land Co., 47 N.J.Eq. 365, 20 A. 497; Lynch v. Livingston, 6 N.Y. 422; Linville v. Greer, 165 Mo. 380, 65 S.W. 579; Grooms v. Morrison, 249 Mo. 544, 155 S.W. 430; R. S. 1929, sec. 1723; Burt v. Second Natl. Bank, 241 Mich. 216, 217 N.W. 71; Roethemeier v. Veith, 334 Mo. 1030, 69 S.W.2d 930; Burke v. Lambert, 15 Wkly. Rep. 913; Dighton v. Tomlinson, 1 Comyns, 194, 92 Eng. Reprints 1030, 10 Mod. 31, 88 Eng. Reprints 612, 1 P. Wms. 149, 24 Eng. Reprints 335, 1 Salk. 239, 91 Eng. Reprints 212; Weston v. Second Orthodox Cong. Soc., 79 N.H. 245, 110 A. 137; Jones on Evidence (Horwitz' Ed., 1913), secs. 24, 25-A; Jones on Evidence (Horwitz' Ed., 1913), sec. 25; Dowzelot v. Rawlings, 58 Mo. 75; Carter v. Carter, Mosely 365, 25 Eng. Reprints 442; Allen v. Papworth, 1 Ves. 163, 27 Eng. Reprints 958; Irwin v. Farrar, 19 Ves. Jr. 86, 34 Eng. Reprints 450; Fortescue v. Gregor, 5 Ves. Jr. 553, 31 Eng. Reprints 734; Smith Drug Co. v. Saunders, 70 Mo.App. 227; Laclede Const. Co. v. Moss Tie Co., 185 Mo. 25, 84 S.W. 76; Nelson v. Nelson, 90 Mo. 460, 2 S.W. 413; Williston on Contracts, sec. 623; Gunn v. Thruston, 130 Mo. 339, 32 S.W. 654; Armstrong v. Farrar, 8 Mo. 451; Restatement of the Law of Agency, secs. 82, 97, 290; Mechem on Agency (2 Ed.), secs. 348, 434, 446, 451; Clark v. Clark, 59 Mo.App. 532; Alexander v. Wade, 106 Mo.App. 141, 80 S.W. 19; Shinn v. Guyton & Herrington Mule Co., 109 Mo.App. 557, 83 S.W. 1015; Beagles v. Robertson, 135 Mo.App. 306, 115 S.W. 1042; Edgar v. Breck Corp., 172 Mass. 581, 53 N.E. 1083; Tingley v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 5 Wash. 644; Daugherty v. Burgess & Son, 118 Mo.App. 569, 94 S.W. 594; Kirkpatrick v. Pease, 202 Mo. 471, 101 S.W. 651; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Niggeman, 119 Mo.App. 56, 96 S.W. 293; Soames v. Spencer, 1 Dowl. & Ry. 32; 5 Harvard Law Review 1; Wolff v. Horncastle, 1 Bos. & Pul. 316, 126 Eng. Rep. 924; Spittle v. Lavender, 2 Brod. & B. 452, 129 Eng. Rep. 1041; Jones on Evidence (Horwitz' Ed.), sec. 76; R. S. 1929, sec. 94. (3) Respondents cannot be heard to deny that they have released their remainder interests. O'Reilly v. Nicholson, 45 Mo. 160; Pemberton v. Pemberton, 29 Mo. 408; Wood v. Conqueror Trust Co., 265 Mo. 511, 178 S.W. 201; Stevens Mfg. Co. v. United States, 8 F.Supp. 720; Tide Water Oil Co., 29 B. T. A. 1208; Moran v. Commissioner, 67 F.2d 601; Paul & Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, 53.05, 53.12; Mechem on Agency (2 Ed.), sec. 454; Stearns v. United States, 291 U.S. 54; Mahoning Inv. Co., v. United States, 3 F.Supp. 622; Ramsey v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, 66 F.2d 316; Cousins v. Bowling, 100 Mo.App. 459, 74 S.W. 168; Provines v. Wilder, 87 Mo.App. 162; Otrich v. Railroad, 154 Mo.App. 420, 134 S.W. 665; Bushnell v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 91 Mo.App. 523; Barber v. Stroub, 111 Mo.App. 57, 85 S.W. 915; Summet v. City Realty Co., 208 Mo. 501, 106 S.W. 614; Walser v. Wear, 141 Mo. 443, 42 S.W. 428; Dorrance v. Thayer-Martin, 115 N.J.Eq. 268, 170 A. 601, affirmed. 116 N. J. L. 362, 184 A. 743 certiorari denied 298 U.S. 678; "Fortune" Magazine, November, 1935; Potter v. Adams, 24 Mo. 159; Donnan v. Intelligencer Prtg. & Pub. Co., 70 Mo. 168; Lilly v. Menke, 143 Mo. 137, 44 S.W. 730; R. S. 1929, secs. 764, 776; Equity Rule 25, 28, U.S.C. A., p. 16; Overton v. White, 117 Mo.App. 576, 93 S.W. 363. (4) Certain evidence of respondents was incompetent. R. S. 1929, sec. 1723; Patton v. Fox, 169 Mo. 97, 69 S.W. 287; Fisher v. Fisher, 203 Mo.App. 45, 217 S.W. 845; Smith v. Smith, 201 Mo. 533, 100 S.W. 579; Sanford v. Van Pelt, 314 Mo. 175, 282 S.W. 1022; Leeper v. Taylor, 111 Mo. 312, 19 S.W. 955; Davis v. Robb, 10 S.W.2d 680.

E. J. Doerner and Jesse T. Friday for Johanna F. Fiske, Amanda F. Wheeler, Henrietta A. Holdoway, Adelaide F. Zimmermann and Otto B. Franz.

(1) The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States (as well as an Act of Congress and a Statute of Missouri) requires that full "faith and credit" be given here to the "judicial proceedings" in the Federal forum. Fiske v. State of Mo., 62 F.2d 150; Fiske v. State of Mo., 69 F.2d 683; U.S. Const., Art. IV, sec. 1; R. S. U.S. sec. 905; Davis v. Davis, 83 L.Ed. 56; In re Estate of Thompson v. Coyle & Co., 339 Mo. 423; R. S. 1929, sec. 1700; Clark v. Sec. Ben. Assn., 121 S.W.2d 148; Sovereign Camp v. Bolin, 83 L.Ed. 58. (2) The decree of the United States District Court of May 5, 1927, is itself also res adjudicata of the question as to the ownership of the Burroughs Adding Machine Company stock. Buder v. Franz, 27 F.2d 101; State ex rel. v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 317 Mo. 1078; Stoll v. Gottlieb, 83 L.Ed. 116; In re Guardianship of McMenamy, 307 Mo. 98; State ex rel. v. Mining Co., 262 Mo. 490; Fiske v. State of Mo., 62 F.2d 150; Fiske et al. v. State of Mo., 69 F.2d 683; Chouteau v. Gibson, 76 Mo. 38; In re Cherokee Pub. Serv. Co., 94 F.2d 536; Deppe v. General Motors Corp., 98 F.2d 813; Miss. Valley Trust Co. v. Begley, 310 Mo. 287. (3) The appellant State is undertaking, collaterally, to attack the adjudication of stock ownership in the Federal forum. The Missouri, as well as the Federal, cases are to the effect that no such attack can be allowed for any irregularity in the form, entry or record (and, at the most, that is all that can be contended for the appellant State) but only for want of jurisdiction of parties or of the subject matter apparent on the face of the record. Cooper v. Reynolds, 77 U.S. 315; Winston v. Affalter, 49 Mo. 267; Schneiderheinze v. Berg, 269 Mo. 263; Jefferson City Bridge & Tr. Co. v. Blaser, 318 Mo. 377. (4) If it be assumed that the appellant State introduced any substantial evidence below (in support of its contention as to the ownership of the stock) it remains that there was much evidence to the contrary -- stipulated facts, records and the testimony of divers witnesses who were heard orally and through deposition; and this being admittedly a case at law with jury waived the long established practice here is that that evidence will not now be weighed in this court, in a re-determination of who owns the stock, as now prayed by the appellant's Assignment of Error No. 14. Bachman v. Railroad Co., 310 Mo. 48; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 327 Mo. 773; Clark v. Commerce Trust Co., 62 S.W.2d 874.

Buder & Buder for Sherman H. Kleinschmidt, Helen Kleinschmidt and G. A. Franz.

(1) The title of the respondents to their respective remainder interests in the estate of Ehrhardt D. Franz, deceased, was adjudicated years ago in the Federal Courts and the question cannot be reopened by the appellant. Buder v. Franz, 27 F.2d 101; Fiske v. State of Mo., 62 F.2d 153; Fiske v. State of Mo., 69 F.2d 684; Wallace v Fiske, 80 F.2d 908. The Franz estate litigation in the Federal Courts in which the title of the respondents was adjudicated was an action in rem and is, therefore, conclusively binding upon the appellant even though it was not a party to that proceeding at the time the decree was entered. Franz v. Buder, 11 F.2d 859; State ex rel. Gott v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 298 S.W. 88; State ex rel. Hudson v. Trammel, 106 Mo. 520; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U.S. 56; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 167; Pitman v. Commr. of Internal Rev., 64 F.2d 741. (2) Under the Constitution of the United States and statutory provisions passed in keeping therewith, the courts of the State of Missouri will accord full faith and credit to, and will, therefore, abide by the decree of the Federal Court in the Franz estate litigation adjudicating the title of respondents to their remainder interests in the estate of Ehrhardt D. Franz, deceased, and the inclusion in said interests of the shares of stock mentioned and involved in this proceeding. U.S....