Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
Decision Date | 05 March 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 23115.,23115. |
Parties | LOUD v. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO. et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. Calhoun, Judge.
Suit by Ida Mary Loud against the St. Louis Union Trust Company and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Jourdan, Rassieur & Pierce and John M. Goodwin, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Bryan, Williams & Cave, of St. Louis, for respondents.
Statement.
This suit was brought in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, by the plaintiff against the defendants to have a trust declared void, created by the will of Mary Jane Blanke, deceased, the contention being that it violates the rule (instead of the statute, as I have inadvertently stated in former opinions written or this subject) against perpetuities, and for collateral relief incident thereto. There is no controversy over the facts of the case. While they are not agreed to, yet they are not disputed. They are stated by counsel for plaintiff substantially in the following language:
Mary Jane Blanke died in St. Louis, on the 12th day of May, 1914. At her death she was the owner of several pieces of real estate, located in said city and a large amount of personal property. The value of her personal estate alone aggregated more than $800,000. It consisted of secured notes, stocks, municipal and corporate bonds, certificates of deposit, and cash in bank. At the time of the trial of this cause in the lower court, on March 17, 1920, the personal estate had greatly increased in value.
At her death, Mary Jane Blanke left surviving her the appellant, Ida Mary Loud, who was her only child and her sole heir at law. At the death of Mrs. Blanke, Mary Laud had three children—i. e., Archibald Chester Loud, who was then 26 years old plus, Harold Lester Loud, who was then 24 years old plus, and August Blanke Loud, who was then 18 years old plus. At said time the husband of plaintiff and the father of said children was still alive, and he was living at the date of the trial of this cause in the lower court. Mrs. Loud's age at Mrs. Blanke's death was approximately 54 years.
In addition to the above, Mary Jane Blanke left at her death, as her only relatives, a brother, Joseph B. Farmer, and said Joseph B. Farmer, at the date of the institution of this action, had as his only living descendants, Percy Farmer, Clarence Farmer, Eva Cleage, Ruth Wackman, and May Farmer. Mary Jane Blanke left a will which was duly admitted to probate by the probate court of the city of St. Louis, on the 23d day of May, 1914, which said will (omitting attestation) was as follows:
is given full power to purchase any property, real or personal, which it may think desirable to acquire and hold as part of the said trust estate.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosenzweig v. Ferguson
...Evans, 51 Mo. 335; Matthews v. O'Donnell, 233 S.W. 451; Chilton v. Hedges, 204 S.W. 900; State ex rel. v. Center, 262 Mo. 490; Loud v. St. Louis, 249 S.W. 629; Barber v. St. Joseph, 183 Mo. 451; Lackey v. Lube, 36 Mo. 115. (7) Court order approving execution sale and ordering deed is not a ......
-
Kennard v. Wiggins
...(2) If technical words are used in a will, the testator is presumed to have used them in their technical sense. Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 298 Mo. 148, 249 S.W. 629; Wiggins v. Perry, 271 S.W. l.c. 827. (3) Where property passes to one for life with remainder to the heirs of her bod......
-
Davis v. Mitchell
...should not be done. Cf. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Bassett, 337 Mo. 604, 85 S.W.2d 569, 101 A.L.R. 1266; and Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 298 Mo. 148, 249 S.W. 629, 636. If this clearly expressed intention needed reinforcement, it is, we think, to be found in the inferences reasonab......
-
Gardner v. Vanlandingham
...786 (where context of will and fact that it was drawn by a layman was held to require a different interpretation); Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 298 Mo. 148, 249 S.W. 629; 28 R.C.L. 223, secs. 184-85.] Another rule is that the law favors vested estates, so that, unless the testator has......