Peeters v. Schultz
Citation | 254 S.W. 182,300 Mo. 324 |
Decision Date | 31 July 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 23548.,No. 23547.,23547.,23548. |
Parties | PEETERS v. SCHULTZ et al. (two cases). |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Jon W. McElhinney, Judge.
Suit by Ida Peeters against Emma Schultz, and William Schultz, individually and as administrator of the estate of Frederick Schultz, deceased. From a decree dismissing petitions of plaintiff and of last-named defendant, plaintiff appeals, and last-named defendant cross-appeals. Affirmed.
William B. & Ford Thompson, of St. Louis, for Peeters.
Randolph Laughlin, of St. Louis, for William Schultz and others.
Jos. C. McAtee, of Clayton, for Emma Schultz.
This is an action in equity to cancel a judgment of the probate court of St. Louis county by which judgment Emma Schultz had an allowance made her of some $9,837 against the estate of Frederick Schultz, deceased. The plaintiff Ida Peeters and defendants Emma Schultz and William Schultz were the surviving sisters and brother of the deceased, and were his sole heirs at law. The personal estate of deceased was nominal and inconsequential, but he was the owner (so far as the title records show) of several small tracts of land, aggregating 22 acres or more, which land is of considerable value. William Schultz is the administrator of the estate. The petition charges that there was fraud in the procurement of the judgment attacked in this action, and these assignments of fraud are as follows:
William Schultz, for himself and as administrator of the estate of Frederick Schultz, admitted and adopted as their answer all the allegations of the plaintiff's petition, save and except he denied:
"That there was any conspiracy whatever between the defendant Emma Schultz and William Schultz as administrator of Frederick Schultz, but on the contrary allege the facts to be that these defendants (William Schultz and William Schultz, administrator) were victims of the same fraud of which plaintiff complains, as much as was the plaintiff herself."
Defendant Emma Schultz, after admitting her judgment in the sum of $9,837, and denying generally all other allegations of the petition, thus proceeds in her answer:
Plaintiff by way of reply denied the allegations in the answer of Emma Schultz, and defendant Emma Schultz replied by general denial to the answer of William Schultz and William Schultz, administrator. Thus were the issues made.
Upon trial, the court, after making a finding of facts as to the particular facts involved, entered a decree in accordance with his last finding, which reads:
"The court further finds that there is no equity in plaintiff's bill; that she had an adequate remedy at law by appeal, and had a remedy at law by filing a motion in the probate court for the vacation of said allowance, if same was improper; and that the petition of plaintiff should be dismissed, and also the petition of William Schultz should be dismissed, and the costs herein should be assessed against plaintiff Ida Peeters and defendant William Schultz."
Cross-appeals were taken herein, and the same are the subject-matters of this case. Two short transcripts were filed, but the cases were consolidated and are presented here upon a single abstract of record. Details are left to the opinion.
I. The chancellor, nisi, after first finding that there was no equity in plaintiff's bill or petition, further finds, as shown by the finding of fact last above quoted in our statement of this case, that Plaintiff had adequate remedies at law "by appeal and * * * by filing a motion in the probate court for vacation of said allowance." Following this suggestion of the trial court, respondent now urges that, by virtue of R. S. 1919, §§ 211 and 283, the plaintiff had ample legal remedies, and therefore her bill in equity was properly dismissed. In Walther v. Null, 233 Mo. loc. cit. 113, 134 S. W. 995, Lamm, thus tersely outlines the provisions of section 220; R. S. 1909, now section 211, a. S. 1919:
"If any executor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. Wright, 38244.
... ... Peters v. Schultz, 300 Mo. 324, 254 S.W. 182; Emerson-Brantingham Imp. v. Montgomery, 300 S.W. 538; Wagoner v. Wagoner, 306 Mo. 241, 267 S.W. 654; Howey v. Howey, 240 ... ...
-
Hockenberry v. Cooper County State Bank
... ... 151. (4) The fraud must be of such a nature as to mislead or deceive the court which entered the judgment. Doud v. Lockett, 215 S.W. 770; Peeters v. Schultz, 254 S.W. 182, 300 Mo. 324. (5) The evidence disclosed that respondent was acquainted with all the material facts which formed the basis ... ...
-
Hockenberry v. Cooper County State Bank of Bunceton
... ... must be of such a nature as to mislead or deceive the court ... which entered the judgment. Doud v. Lockett, 215 ... S.W. 770; Peeters v. Schultz, 254 S.W. 182, 300 Mo ... 324. (5) The evidence disclosed that respondent was ... acquainted with all the material facts which formed ... ...
- State ex rel. Shartel v. Trimble