Mockbee v. Grooms
Decision Date | 15 August 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 23581.,23581. |
Parties | MOCKBEE et al. v. GROOMS et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from. Circuit Court, Jackson County.; Willard P. Hall, Judge.
Suit by Cuthbert Mockbee and others against Tarvin, C. Grooms, Alice Stout, and others. From the decree rendered, defendants Stout and another appeal. Affirmed.
Moore, Smith, Aughinbaugh & Ault and A. F. Evans, all of Kansas City, for appellants.
Montgomery & Rucker, of Sedalia, for respondents Mockbee and others.
Wilkinson, Wilkinson & Dabbs, of Kansas City, for respondents Grooms and others.
I. Suit to partition three tracts of land, 40 acres, 10.17 acres, and 5.87 acres in said county near Kansas City.
In their petition, plaintiffs alleged: That they and certain of the defendants are the heirs of one Reuben Mockbee, deceased, who owned said property at the time of his death, died intestate, without children, but left Sarah Mockbee (afterwards Sarah J. Searcy), as his widow. That she elected to take half of said property in lieu of dower, and that she died testate, devising her interest in said property to the heirs of said Reuben Mockbee, deceased. That by reason of the premises the title to said property is vested in plaintiffs and said defendants. That three of the defendants, to wit, Allie Stout and Lenora Davenport, children, and William Christopher Reynolds, grandson, claim an interest in said real estate, as the heirs of said Sarah J. Seamy, but have no interest therein, and are made parties so the court may determine their interest.
Defendants flied motion to require plains to elect whether they would claim said property as heirs of said Mockbee, or as deyisses of said Sarah I. Seamy, which the court overruled. They then filed answers, putting the allegations of the petition in issue, asserting title in themselves by a counterclaim, and praying the court to adjudge them to be the owners of said property. The reply put the new matter in the answers in issue.
At the time of his death in December, 1878, Reuben Mockbee, owned the land in question. He and his wife, Sarah J., at that time resided thereon as their homestead. He died intestate, without descendants, leaving his widow and several brothers and sisters and their descendants, as his heirs, under whom plaintiffs claim. His widow married Christopher Reed Seamy, and duly elected to take half of the real estate left by her former husband, Mockbee, subject to the payment of his debts, in lieu of dower therein. She married said Seamy prior to the 19th of September, 1882. She resided upon said property as her home from the time of the death of her first husband, and after her marriage to Searcy, continuously until her death in October, 1916. She left two children by her second husband surviving her, defendants Lenora A. Davenport and Allie Stout, and William Christopher Reynolds, her grandson, and only child of her deceased daughter, Sarah Quintiller Reynolds. Resides her interest in the land in controversy, Mrs. Seamy owned other lands in the neighborhood, a portion of which she acquired at the administrator's sale of other lands of her deceased husband, Mockbee. Mrs. Searcy died testate, leaving a will in words and figures as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Bassett
...the will, then the valid devises must fall with the invalid. Lockbridge v. Mace, 109 Mo. 162; Shepperd v. Fisher, 206 Mo. 208; Mockbee v. Grooms, 254 S.W. 170; Loud v. Louis Union Trust Co., supra. The test is whether the rejected parts may be expunged without essentially changing the gener......
-
Trautz v. Lemp
...it is a part falls with it. Lockridge v. Mace, 109 Mo. 168; Shepperd v. Fisher, 206 Mo. 208; Loud v. Trust Co., 298 Mo. 148; Mockbee v. Grooms, 300 Mo. 472; Tilden Greene, 130 N.Y. 50. (6) If the residuary dispositions of the will are valid the surviving trustees ought to be removed because......
-
Niedringhaus v. William F. Niedringhaus Inv. Co.
... ... and also the intention of the testator. Plummer v ... Brown, 315 Mo. 627; Mockbee v. Grooms, 300 Mo ... 446; Loud v. Trust Co., 298 Mo. 148; Gates v ... Seibert, 157 Mo. 254; Garesche v. Levering Inv ... Co., 146 Mo ... ...
-
Sims v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
...235 S.W. 1047; Bond v. Riley, 317 Mo. 594, 296 S.W. 401; Kerens v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 283 Mo. 601, 223 S.W. 645; Mockbee v. Grooms, 300 Mo. 446, 254 S.W. 170; Plummer v. Roberts, 315 Mo. 627, 287 S.W. In re Aiken's Estate (Mo. App.), 5 S.W.2d 662.] Of course it must be understood th......