Joerger v. Joerger

Decision Date31 January 1906
Citation193 Mo. 133,91 S.W. 918
PartiesJOERGER et al. v. JOERGER.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Warwich Hough, Judge.

Partition by John J. Joerger and others against Christine Joerger. From the judgment awarding partition, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. W. Lubke and Geo. W. Lubke, Jr., for appellant. Rassieur, Schnurmacher & Rassieur and Henry Boemler, for respondents.

GANTT, J.

This is a proceeding originally brought by Anton Joerger, Edward P. Luecking, and H. J. Krembs against Mrs. Christine Joerger, for the partition of two pieces of real estate, to wit: Lots 10 and 11 of the subdivision by James B. Clay of lots 1 to 5, in block 23 of Old Orchard tract, and in block 4441 of the city of St. Louis, said lots having together a front of 50 feet on the south side of Natural Bridge Road, by a depth to an alley southwardly of 179 feet and 6 inches, and bounded west by lot 9, north by Natural Bridge Road, east by lot 13 of said block, and south by said alley, conveyed to said Joerger by deed dated the 18th day of September, 1879, recorded in Book 617, page 215, in the recorder's office in the city of St. Louis. And a tract of land situated in the county of Ste Genevieve in the state of Missouri, all of the N. ½ of the S. W. ¼ of section 2, township 38, range 6 E., and the north part of the S. ½ of said S. W. ¼ of section 2, township 38, range 6 E.; the last-described land containing about 45 acres and containing in the aggregate 125 acres more or less. Judgment for partition and an order of sale of said land was rendered at the February term, 1903, of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. The defendant filed her motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, which were by the court overruled, and defendant was granted an appeal to this court.

During the pendency of this appeal in this court, and on the 8th day of May, 1904, Anton Joerger, the husband, departed this life testate, and by his last will and testament devised his interest in said estate to John A. Joerger, Paul Joerger, Elizabeth Joerger, Lena Benson, and Christine Hammond, and suggestion of the death of the said Anton Joerger was duly made and scire facias ordered to the said devisees to show cause why they should not be substituted as plaintiffs in the place and stead of said Anton Joerger, which said scire facias was duly issued and served upon the said devisees, in January and February, 1905, commanding them to appear in this court on the first day of the April term of this court for the year 1905. And no cause to the contrary having been shown, it was ordered that this cause stand revived in their names, together with the plaintiffs Luecking and Krembs.

The interest of the said Krembs results from the giving of a note by the said Anton Joerger, on May 24, 1900, to the said Krembs for the sum of $550, payable in one year thereafter, and the execution and delivery of a deed of trust to the plaintiff Edward P. Luecking, as trustee on the undivided one-half interest of the said Anton Joerger in said real estate, and lots on the Natural Bridge Road as above described; the same not having been satisfied when this action was commenced, nor at the date of the judgment. The answer of Mrs. Christine Joerger admitted the marriage of Anton Joerger and herself, and her divorce from the plaintiff on the 25th of January, 1900, and that the description of the property mentioned in the petition was correctly set forth, and then denied all the other allegations of the petition. The answer then set up, by way of cross-bill, that all the real estate described in the petition was the sole and separate estate of the defendant, Christine Joerger, purchased with her own money, and that she had expended large sums of money, $1,000, improving, repairing, and maintaining the same, and that whatever rights the plaintiffs Edward P. Luecking and H. J. Krembs had acquired in the property they had obtained subsequent to the institution of this suit and the filing of the defendant's answer herein, and with full knowledge of defendant's right in the premises, and prayed a decree that the property described should be adjudged the sole and separate estate of the defendant, Christine Joerger, and, in the event the same should not be found to be her separate estate, that she should have a lien on the said property superior to the plaintiffs' for the sums expended by her for improvements and repairs, and such additional relief as she might merit. The reply was a general denial of the new matter set up in the answer. The cause was referred by consent of parties to George F. Beck, Esq., a member of the bar, to be tried, who heard the evidence, and on May 9, 1901, filed his report therein, with a transcript of the evidence and testimony taken before him. The evidence tended to prove, without contradiction, that Anton Joerger and Christine Joerger, the defendant, were married in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1854. The plaintiff offered and read in evidence a deed from Pattie D. McCowan and B. H. McCowan, her husband, of Jefferson county, Ky., dated September 18, 1879, to Anton Joerger and Christine Joerger, recorded September 30, 1879,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Milligan v. Bing
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1937
    ... ... proof appears. The burden of proof is upon plaintiffs in this ... case, if they are allowed to overturn the deed. [Joerger ... v. Joerger, 193 Mo. l. c. 139, 91 S.W. 918, 5 Ann. Cas ... 534; Morford v. Stephens, 178 S.W. l. c. 441.] And ... such proof must be of a ... ...
  • Hernandez v. Prieto
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1942
    ... ... "presumption" that, by directing the conveyance to ... himself and wife, he made a "gift" to his wife of ... her interest. Joerger v. Joerger, 193 Mo. 133, 91 ... S.W. 918; Aeby v. Aeby, 192 S.W. 97; Otto F ... Stifel's Union Brewing Co. v. Saxy, 273 Mo. 159, 201 ... S.W. 67, ... ...
  • Larrick v. Heathman
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1921
    ...was the intention of the parties to the transaction that a resulting trust should be created. Morford v. Stephens, 178 S.W. 441; Joerger v. Joerger 192 Mo. 133; Philpot v. Penn, 91 Mo. 44; Johnson Quarles, 46 Mo. 423. (3) And since a resulting trust may be shown by a parol proof, as a presu......
  • Jones v. Jones
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1930
    ...estate in controversy, each party being seized and vested of a separate moiety therein. [Russell v. Russell, 122 Mo. 235, 238; Joerger v. Joerger, 193 Mo. 133, 139; Co. v. Saxy, 273 Mo. 159, 164; State ex rel. Roll v. Ellison, 290 Mo. 28, 32; Aeby v. Aeby (Mo. Sup.), 192 S.W. 97, 99; Funk v......
  • 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