McBride v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 12 April 1932
• Docket Number: 31671,31672
• Parties: Redmond W. McBride, Appellant, v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Company. Mary Belle Hackmann, Appellant, v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Company
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

48 S.W.2d 922

330 Mo. 259

Redmond W. McBride, Appellant, v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Company. Mary Belle Hackmann, Appellant, v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Company

Nos. 31671, 31672

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 12, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Claude O Pearcy, Judge;

Reversed and remanded.

Leahy Saunders & Walther, John S. Leahy, William O. Herin and Lyon Anderson for appellants.

(1) A statutory finding of fact under Sec. 952, R. S. 1929, should embrace all the material facts bearing on the issues involved, and set them out in detail, and not merely state conclusions or inferences therefrom. Under this statute it is essential that the court find affirmatively or negatively all the facts essential to the transaction in question creating the legal relationship in litigation. (a) The purpose and object of statute was to give adequate right of review to losing party and to compel that court to state theory of decision. Bailey v. Wilson, 29 Mo. 21; Nichols v. Carter, 49 Mo.App. 401; Pearce v. Burns, 22 Mo. 577. (b) Authorities reviewed. Korneman v Davis, 281 Mo. 234, 219 S.W. 904; St. Louis Hospital Assn. v. Williams, 19 Mo. 609; Sutter v. Streit, 21 Mo. 157; Allison v. Darton, 24 Mo. 343; McHale v. Wellman, 101 Tenn. 150, 46 S.W. 448; Gulick v. Connely, 42 Ind. 134, 139. (2) Where the trial court refuses to make a proper finding of fact the appellate court may look to the evidence to find the facts and draw the proper legal inference from the facts found. Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. McDonald, 118 Mo.App. 471. (3) The evidence was amply sufficient to establish a gift causa mortis in favor of Redmond W. McBride and Mary Belle Hackmann. Foley v. Harrison, 136 S.W. 354, 233 Mo. 460; Harrison v. Foley, 206 F. 57; Goulding v. Horbury (Me.), 27 A. 127; Moore v. Shifflet, 187 Ky. 7, 216 S.W. 614; Rule v. Fleming (Ind. App.), 152 N.E. 181; Adler's Estate, 177 N.Y.S. 840; Mahon v. Dime Sav. Bank of Brooklyn, 92 A.D. 506, 87 N.Y.S. 258. (4) In passing upon the issue undisputed evidence cannot be arbitrarily rejected. Mahon v. Dime Savings Bank, 92 A.D. 506, 87 N.Y.S. 258; Granim v. Sou. Pac. Co. (Cal.), 276 P. 618, 622; Reichenbach v. Ellerbe, 115 Mo. 588; Grover v. Bach, 82 Minn. 299, 84 N.W. 909; Pumphrey v. Walker, 71 Iowa 383, 32 N.W. 386; Spring v. Millington, 44 Misc. 624, 90 N.Y.S. 152; Moyle v. Hocking, 10 Colo.App. 446, 51 P. 533; Southwest Natl. Bank v. Lindsey, 29 Idaho 343, 158 P. 1082; Newton v. Pope, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 109; Marks & Rittner v. New Orleans Cold Storage Co., 107 La. 172, 31 So. 671; Daly v. Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 319, 45 N.W. 611; Miller et ux. v. Panhandle & S. F. (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S.W.2d 194; McAfle v. Robertson, 41 Tex. 355; Cooley v. Barcroft, 43 N. Y. L. 363; Larson v. Glos, 235 Ill. 584, 85 N.E. 926; St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harmon, 15 S.W.2d 310; Boudeman v. Arnold, 200 Mich. 162, 166 N.W. 985; Beene v. Rotan Grocery Co., 50 Tex. Civ. App. 448, 110 S.W. 162; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Ramsey, 96 Ark. 37, 131 S.W. 44; Peter v. Wright, 6 Ind. 183; Edwards v. Mount Hood Const. Co., 64 Ore. 308, 130 P. 49; Western & A. Railroad Co. v. Beason, 112 Ga. 553, 37 S.E. 863; Cunningham v. Gans, 75 Hun. (N. Y.) 434, 29 N.Y.S. 979; Mobile, J. & K. Railway Co. v. Jackson, 92 Miss. 517, 46 So. 142; Mackey v. Railroad Co., 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 528; Boe v. Lynch, 20 Mont. 80, 49 P. 381; Dunbar v. Day, 12 Neb. 596, 12 N.W. 109. (5) The law raises a presumption of a gift from parent to child from circumstances where it would not be presumed between strangers. Jones v. Jones, 201 S.W. 557; Love v. Francis, 63 Mich. 181, 29 N.W. 843; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561, 126 N.W. 713; Waite v. Grubbe et ux., 43 Ore. 406, 73 P. 206; In re Yeager's Estate, 273 Pa. 359, 117 A. 67; Caldwell v. Goodenough (Mich.), 135 N.W. 1057. (6) Less positive and unequivocal testimony is required where a gift from parent to child is sought to be established. Love v. Francis, 63 Mich. 181, 29 N.W. 843; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561, 126 N.W. 713; Waite v. Grubbe et ux., 43 Ore. 406, 73 P. 206; In re Yeager's Estate, 273 Pa. 359, 117 A. 67; Caldwell v. Goodenough (Mich.), 135 N.W. 1057; Schwindt v. Schwindt, 59 P. 647; Ellis v. Secor, 31 Mich. 185; Leadenham's Estate, 137 A. 247; Roberts v. Morse (Iowa), 181 N.W. 678; Simpson v. League, 110 Md. 286, 72 A. 1109.

Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson & Young, Guy A. Thompson and Richard C. Coburn for respondent.

(1) Where an executor or administrator assumes control of assets in good faith as belonging to the decedent at his death and inventories the property in the estate, the representative of the decedent is not responsible personally, but only in a representative capacity, in a suit brought by a claimant of the property. The appellants claiming property listed by the Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Company as executor of the last will of Thomas Halpin sued the Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Company in replevin in its individual capacity, and not as executor of said decedent. Nye v. U. S. F. & G., 37 S.W.2d 988; Pryce v. Wilson, 266 S.W. 757; White v. McFarland, 148 Mo.App. 338, 128 S.W. 23. The appellants cannot correct their failure to sue the Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Company as executor. A plaintiff may not amend by adding another party defendant unless the original one and the added one are jointly responsible. Meyer v. Oregon Ry. Co., 219 Mo.App. 360, 271 S.W. 865; Jordan v. Railroad, 105 Mo.App. 446, 79 S.W. 1155; Courtney v. Sheehy, 38 Mo.App. 290; Hall v. School District, 36 Mo.App. 21. (2) The trial court entered a finding of facts in favor of the defendant. This finding has the standing of a special verdict upon the same facts and will not be interfered with if there is any substantial testimony to support it. Realty Co. v. Southeastern Railway Co., 219 S.W. 923. (3) A finding of facts in the trial of an action at law by the court upon request should include all the constitutive or ultimate facts. The constitutive or ultimate facts of an action in replevin are: General or special ownership of the property in the plaintiff and his right to immediate possession. American Metal Co. v. Daugherty, 204 Mo. 71, 102 S.W. 538; Moriund v. Johnson, 140 Mo.App. 345, 124 S.W. 80. (4) Whether the record be searched for any substantial evidence to support the finding of fact by the court, or whether the appellate court review the facts and determine the case themselves, the appellants failed to prove a gift causa mortis by clear and conclusive testimony and beyond any reasonable doubt. There are certain generally well-recognized principles in Missouri with reference to gifts. A gift causa mortis must be proved by clear and convincing testimony and beyond a reasonable doubt. Foley v. Harrison, 233 Mo. 460, 136 S.W. 354; Newell v. Edom, 242 S.W. 701; Stewart v. Stokes, 177 Mo.App. 390, 164 S.W. 156. The degree and character of proof necessary to establish a gift causa mortis in Missouri is as high and more convincing to the judicial mind than is required by the courts of England and by most of the states of the Union. Foley v. Harrison, supra, 233 Mo. 583; Harrison v. Foley, 206 F. 57. The same cautionary rule is applied to gifts inter vivos where the claim is made after the death of the donor. In re Van Fossen, 13 S.W.2d 1076; Cremer v. May, 8 S.W.2d 110; Morley v. Prendiville, 316 Mo. 1094, 295 S.W. 563; Albrecht v. Slater, 233 S.W. 8; Reynolds v. Hanson, 191 S.W. 1030; Jones v. Falls, 101 Mo.App. 536, 73 S.W. 903. The failure to claim a gift when the opportunity presents itself weighs heavily against the alleged donee. Reynolds v. Hanson, supra; Stewart v. Stokes, supra; Jones v. Falls, supra; Ward v. Turner, 2 Ves. Sr. 430. To create a gift causa mortis or inter vivos there must be a delivery, actual, constructive or symbolical, accompanied with the intent of the grantor to part with his right to and dominion over the subject of the gift. Albrecht v. Slater, supra; Martin v. First Natl. Bank, 206 Mo.App. 629, 227 S.W. 656; Thomas v. Thomas, 107 Mo. 459, 18 S.W. 27. Furthermore, the gift must be accepted by the donee. Albrecht v. Slater, supra; Thomas v. Thomas, supra; Cincinnati Finance Co. v. Atkinson's Administrator, 31 S.W.2d 890. Ordinarily where a gift is beneficial to the donee and does not impose upon him a burden his acceptance will be presumed. Jones v. Jones, 201 S.W. 557; Tygard v. McComb, 54 Mo.App. 85. But the presumption vanishes in the face of proof that the donee did not intend to accept the gift. Jones v. Jones, supra; Cincinnati Finance Co. v. Atkinson's Administrator, supra; Gottstein v. Hedges, 228 N.W. 93; Mahoney v. Martin, 83 P. 982. The conduct of the donee by showing an intention not to accept the gift will defeat it. Albrecht v. Slater, supra; Cincinnati Finance Co. v. Atkinson's Administrator, supra. (5) The rule of ordinary civil cases that the plaintiff is only required to prove his case by the preponderance of the evidence does not apply to gift cases, where the evidence must be clear and convincing and show the gift beyond a reasonable doubt. Cremer v. May, supra, distinguished, Brooks v. Robert, 281 Mo. 251, 220 S.W. 11. (6) The rule that any less degree of proof is required in a case involving an alleged gift between a parent and child, or husband and wife, than in a case involving a stranger, does not apply in Missouri. Morley v. Prendiville, supra; Albrecht v. Slater, supra; In re Van Fossen, supra; Cremer v. May, supra; McCune v. Daniels, 225 S.W. 1020; Reynolds v. Hanson, supra; Jones v. Falls, supra.

OPINION

White, J.

Each of these cases is in replevin. They were argued and submitted together. In the McBride case the plaintiff seeks to recover possession of bonds...