Otto F. Stifel's Union Brewing Co. v. Weber

• Decision Date: 06 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 14362.,14362.
• Parties: OTTO F. STIFEL'S UNION BREWING CO. v. WEBER et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

186 S.W. 1119

194 Mo. App. 605

OTTO F. STIFEL'S UNION BREWING CO. v. WEBER et al.

No. 14362.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 6, 1916.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court; Rhodes E. Cave, Judge.

"To be officially published."

Suit by Otto F. Stifel's Union Brewing Company against Julius W. Weber and others. To review a judgment against it on demurrer to the bill, plaintiff brings error. Judgment affirmed.

Plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from a judgment against it on demurrer to the bill. The bill so demurred to is as follows:

"By leave of court first had and obtained, plaintiff files this its second amended petition, and for cause of action against the defendants plaintiff states that it is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Missouri and was originally incorporated under the name of Union Brewing Company, and that thereafter, according to law, after the 27th day of August, 1907, its name was changed to Otto F. Stifel's Union Brewing Company; that heretofore long prior to the 28th day of December, 1906, plaintiff and the defendant Julius W. Weber had mutual dealings with each other in which said Julius W. Weber became and, both before and after the 28th day of December, 1906, was indebted to plaintiff in various sums; that thereafter plaintiff under its then name of Union Brewing Company instituted suits against said Julius W. Weber before Louis C. Spies, justice of the peace, for the First district of said city and state, and thereafter on the 27th day of August, 1907, before said justice of the peace recovered judgments against said Julius W. Weber in said suits, one for the sum of $440 and costs, and the other for the sum of $403.10 and costs, transcripts of which plaintiff thereafter filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of said city, which said transcripts are numbered 14845 and 14846, respectively; that said judgments are both final and unappealed from, and that although plaintiff has endeavored to compel the payment of the same by levy under execution, said judgments remain and are now wholly unsatisfied.

"Plaintiff further states that while said indebtedness from said Julius W. Weber to the plaintiff was accruing, said defendant was the owner in fee simple and free of incumbrance of an undivided one-fifth interest in and to the following described real estate situated in block No. 1932 of said city of St. Louis, Mo., namely: A lot beginning at the southwest corner of Second street and Bremen avenue, thence running westwardly along the south line of Bremen avenue 32 feet to a point, thence running southwardly and parallel to the west line of Second street 100 feet to a point in the northern line of lot No. 10 of block No. 1 of McGuire's Second addition, thence running eastwardly 32 feet to the west line of Second street, thence northwardly along the west line of Second street 100 feet to the point of beginning; that on said 28th day of December, 1906, said Julius W. Weber and the defendant Louise Weber, his wife, with the intent to hinder, defraud, and delay the creditors of said Julius W. Weber in the collection and enforcement of their just demands against him, the said Julius W. Weber, and particularly the plaintiff, by their deed of quitclaim of said date and thereafter recorded on the 3d day of January, 1907, in book 1973 of the recorder's office of said city, for a pretended consideration of $2,000 pretended to convey said real estate to the defendant Charles O. Weber; that in truth and fact no consideration passed from said Charles O. Weber to said Julius W. Weber for said pretended conveyance, and that said conveyance was intended by the parties thereto only to vest the title to said real estate in the defendant Charles O. Weber for the use and benefit of and secret trust for the defendant Julius W. Weber, and that after said conveyance was recorded said defendant Charles O. Weber held whatever title was conveyed thereby to him in trust for and for the use and benefit of said Julius W. Weber and for the purpose of preventing the creditors of said Julius W. Weber, particularly the plaintiff, from levying upon said property, executions to collect judgments obtained by them against him.

"Plaintiff further states that contemporaneously with the execution and delivery of said deed of quitclaim, and in pursuance of the purpose and intent of said Julius W. Weber to hinder and delay and defraud his creditors, said defendant Charles O. Weber, together with Mary Weber, his wife, executed and delivered to the defendant Julius W. Weber a quitclaim deed by which they pretended to convey said real estate to the defendant Louise Weber; that the consideration mentioned in said last-named deed was the sum of $1, but that in truth and fact no consideration therefor passed from said Louise Weber to said Charles O. Weber; that said deed last mentioned is also dated on said 28th day of December, 1906; that both said deed and said quitclaim deed by which said Julius W. Weber pretended to convey said real estate to said Charles O. Weber were acknowledged before William H. Hauschulte as notary public.

"Plaintiff further states that said deed of quitclaim from the defendant Charles O. Weber and his wife to the defendant Louise Weber, although delivered to the defendant Julius W. Weber, was not recorded at the time it was delivered, but was withheld from record until the 9th day of June, 1911, nearly 4½ years after its execution and delivery, and that it was then recorded in Book 2444 at page 426 of the recorder's office of said city; that the withholding of said deed from record was also a part of the fraudulent purpose and intent of Julius W. Weber aforesaid by which he was attempting to hinder and delay his creditors, particularly the plaintiff, in the enforcement of their just claims against him; that shortly after said 9th day of June, 1911, the defendant Louise Weber instituted suit together with said Julius W. Weber in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Mo., to partition said real estate and to have the same sold for the purpose of dividing the proceeds thereof; that said suit was at the commencement of this suit pending and was known as No. 73160 — A, division 5, in the records of said court; that in said suit judgment of partition was heretofore entered on the 9th day of February, 1912, and an order of sale, and that pursuant to said order of sale the defendant George W. Strodtman was appointed special commissioner to sell said real estate, and thereafter on the 18th day of March, 1912, sold the same for the sum of $5,350; that said sale was thereafter approved by said court, and said special commissioner delivered his deed conveying said property and collected from the purchaser said sum; that thereafter said special commissioner made his report to said court showing said facts, and that said court thereafter, on April 16, 1912, entered final judgment in said cause, together with an order of...