Middelton v. Reece
| Decision Date | 08 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 41726,41726,1 |
| Citation | 236 S.W.2d 335 |
| Parties | MIDDELTON v. REECE et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Whitney W. Potter, Earl C. Borchers, St. Joseph, for appellant.
Gene Thompson, Frank Thompson, Maryville, John Robinson, Harold Miller,AT Maryville, for respondents.
Action in equity to establish a resulting trust in described real estate and personal property in Andrew county and for specific enforcement of a contract to make a will devising and bequeathing the described property to plaintiff, for an accounting of rents and profits and for other relief. The trial court found the issues for defendants and that defendant Mattie E. Reece was the fee simple owner of described real estate and the owner of the personal property, subject only to the administration of the estate of Thomas A. Reece, deceased. Plaintiff has appealed.
The fourth amended petition upon which the cause was tried proceeded upon the theory that plaintiff's father Thomas A. Reece, at the time of his death on February 25, 1948, 'had in his name and under his control as trustee a large amount of money, livestock, real estate and other property belonging exclusively to this plaintiff.' The described real estate included 295 acres alleged to have been acquired by Thomas A. Reece in 1890, 60 acres, acquired in 1910, and certain lots in the city of Savannah acquired in 1924. The personal property described included bank accounts in the sum of $5500 and 'also a large amount of personal property on the farm such as household goods and furnishings, farm implements and machinery and a large herd of purebred registered Hereford cattle,' all of which property was alleged to be the product of the trusteeship.
As grounds for the creation of the trust, plaintiff alleged that she was the daughter of Thomas A. Reece and Rose B. Reece; that in 1890 her mother inherited in excess of $1000 from a deceased brother and the money was used to purchase the described 295 acre farm, title to which was taken in the name of Thomas A. Reece; that in 1902 her mother inherited $1400 from plaintiff's grandfather and part of the fund was used to buy twelve or more registered Hereford cattle and the balance used for the construction of a new house on the 295 acre farm; that plaintiff's father operated the farm and cattle business under the name of 'Thomas A. Reece, Proprietor,' and prospered; that from the profits and proceeds of the business her father in 1910 purchased the described 60 acres of land and took title in his own name; that in 1915 plaintiff's mother inherited $2400 from plaintiff's grandmother and said sum was used by Thomas A. Reece in improving the described real estate and purchasing livestock and equipment; that in 1924 from the profits and proceeds of the farm and cattle business Thomas A. Reece purchased the described city lots and took title in the name of himself and wife, but that his wife predeceased him, dying on October 7, 1929; that the farm and cattle business, although carried on in her father's name, was in truth and in fact 'as trustee for the benefit of his wife, Rose B. Reece'; that no administration was had on the estate of Rose B. Reece, deceased; that plaintiff and her brother Virgil Thomas Reece were the only children, and her father agreed with them that, if no administration was had on said estate, she and her brother would at the proper time receive everything that stood in the name of Thomas A. Reece; that the farm and cattle business continued to be operated in his name; that Virgil Thomas Reece died on June 27, 1932, single and unmarried, but possessed of described personal property of the approximate value of $5000; that 'plaintiff agreed with her father that there would be no necessity for administration upon the estate of said Virgil Thomas Reece, but that his property should remain with the father as a part of the trust estate heretofore described'; that, thereafter, plaintiff furnished her father $300 for the purpose of paying interest on notes and furthering her own business in the operation of the trust estate; that in 1933 when Thomas A. Reece contemplated a second marriage, he 'promised and agreed with plaintiff that she should have everything at his death and a will in accordance with such agreement would be made before he entered into any marriage; that plaintiff relied upon the said agreement and in reliance thereon permitted her said father to continue the operation of the farm and the cattle business thereon and to use the money that plaintiff had furnished him in connection therewith'; that in 1933 Thomas A. Reece married defendant Mattie E. Reece and, thereafter, continued the operation of the farm and cattle business until his death on February 25, 1948; that by the duly probated last will of Thomas A. Reece, deceased, all of the described real estate, money and personal property standing in the name of Thomas A. Reece was given to defendant Mattie T. Reece, except the town lots in the city of Savannah; that the mentioned bank accounts stood in the name of Thomas A. Reece and Mattie E. Reece, husband and wife; and that all property not inventoried as a part of the Reece estate was claimed by Mattie E. Reece as her personal property, although all of the described property was a part of the trust estate belonging to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged she had no adequate remedy at law and sought relief in equity, as stated. The answers filed by defendants in addition to specific admissions and denials, set up affirmative defenses, including estoppel, laches, limitations and the statute of frauds.
There is no dispute as to heirship. Plaintiff is the only heir at law of Thomas A. Reece and Rose B. Reece. Mattie E. Reece is the surviving widow of Thomas A. Reece, deceased. Rose E. Reece died in 1929, Virgil T. Reece in 1932 and Thomas A. Reece in 1948. Thomas A. Reece acquired the described real estate at the times stated and took title as alleged. He further engaged in the cattle business on an extensive scale and bought, bred, sold, advertised and showed registered Hereford cattle from about 1903 to the date of his death. The farm was operated as alleged, in the name of Thomas A. Reece, Proprietor, and the name 'Oakhurst Farm' was duly registered in the County Clerk's office in his name as owner. He died testate and devised the lots in Savennah to plaintiff and left the remainder of his estate to his widow, Mattie E. Reece. Plaintiff filed a will contest, but the will was duly proven and admitted to probate in solemn form and administration is in progress upon the estate. The real and personal estate in question, except the bank accounts hereinafter mentioned, was inventoried as a part of the Reece estate. There was no administration upon the estates, if any, of Virgil T. Reece and Rose B. Reece.
Plaintiff testified that her maternal grandfather, M. M. Elliott, Sr. died in 1902, and left an estate; that Rose B. Reece received $1400 from her father's estate with which 'she bought Hereford cattle'; that plaintiff 'saw her put it (the $1400) in the bank first'; that the $1400 was used to purchase Hereford cows from Nick Kirtley in 1905; that plaintiff was 12 years old at the time the first cows were purchased (plaintiff was 56 at the time of the trial); that about one year after 'we started in the Hereford business,' the name 'Oakhurst Hereford Farm' was agreed upon; that plaintiff's mother 'took these cattle that she bought at the Nicholas Kirtley sale' to the Oakhurst Hereford Farm, where she continued in the cattle business and 'worked at it the rest of her life.' Plaintiff's father 'managed them and looked after them and cared for them.' A number of persons assisted plaintiff's father and mother in the showing and sale of Hereford cattle. Plaintiff's brother Virgil learned the pedigrees and he helped to prepare the cattle for sales and shows. When Virgil approached young manhood, plaintiff's mother and father advertised Oakhurst Hereford cattle in the American Hereford Journal under the name of T. A. Reece and Son. Plaintiff's mother advertised the business under the name of plaintiff's father and brother or under the name of T. A. Reece 'throughout the entire period of her life.' In 1910, plaintiff's mother purchased the described 60 acres of real estate from Mary Davis. The source of the money that constituted the purchase price of this farm 'was the proceeds from the increased business of the Herefords,' her mother's Hereford cattle. The 60 acres became and was a part of the home farm upon which the cattle business was operated. In 1913 plaintiff married Carl Middleton and moved to a farm about 8 miles away. After plaintiff's mother died in October, 1929, plaintiff and her father and her brother continued to operate the farm and cattle business. Plaintiff participated with them in conferences and in planning and in carrying on the Hereford cattle business on the Oakhurst Hereford Farm, both before and after the death of her mother. Plaintiff's father prepared the written advertisements for the newspapers and journals and plaintiff assisted in determining when sales would be held and what cattle would be sold or would be placed in the herd. When plaintiff's brother, Virgil, died in 1932 he left an estate consisting of a Chrysler car, a diamond ring, livestock and an 'interest in the Hereford cattle,' 'he was a joint owner of the herd of Oakhurst Herefords.' He also had 'a lot of personal effects, such as clothing and furniture and * * * a team of mules,' all located on the Oakhurst Hereford Farm.
On the first Sunday after her mother's death, plaintiff had a conference with her father in her brother's presence at her home. Her father asked if he would be permitted to carry on her mother's business as he had been doing and she and her brother consented. Plaintiff's father then continued handling the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petersen's Estate, In re, 45389
...should generally defer to the findings of the trial court unless satisfied that the findings should have been otherwise. Middleton v. Reece, Mo., 236 S.W.2d 335, 341; Cross v. Gimlin, Mo., 256 S.W.2d 812; Bohnsack v. Hanebrink, Mo., 240 S.W.2d 903; Cosentine v. Heffelfinger, 360 Mo. 535, 22......
-
State ex rel. Carter County v. Lewis
...[Hussey v. Robison, Mo., 285 S.W.2d 603, 604(1); Kramer v. Johnson, 361 Mo. 1085, 1095, 238 S.W.2d 416, 421-422(6); Middleton v. Reece, Mo., 236 S.W.2d 335, 341(1)], for, in our review of the case de novo, we consider such evidence in the record as we deem admissible, excluding from conside......
-
F. v. F.
...improperly admitted, and reach our own conclusions on the evidence offered without regard to the trial court's rulings. Middleton v. Reece, Mo., 236 S.W.2d 335; Bowman v. Kansas City, Mo., 233 S.W.2d Under that rule we are required to pass upon the admissibility of the foregoing evidence, a......
-
Minor v. Lillard, 45144
...be considered upon the review and any incompetent testimony admitted or considered by the trial court will be disregarded. Middelton v. Reece, Mo., 236 S.W.2d 335, 341; Boggess v. Cunningham's ham's Estate, Mo.App., 207 S.W.2d 814, For the purpose of scrutiny and careful analysis in connect......