Peeters v. Schultz

Citation254 S.W. 182,300 Mo. 324
Decision Date31 July 1923
Docket NumberNo. 23548.,No. 23547.,23547.,23548.
PartiesPEETERS v. SCHULTZ et al. (two cases).
CourtUnited 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.

GRAVES, P. J.

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:

"(1) The said claims on the part of the defendant Emma Schultz were each and both of them wholly fictitious, and without any basic whatever in truth or justice.

"(2) That said claims were each and both of them barred on their face by the statute of limitations.

"(3) That said claim for said money, pretended to have been loaned to deceased by said defendant Emma Schultz, was also barred on its face as against the statute of frauds.

"(4) That the attorney who represented the estate and the defendant William Schultz, and whose duty it was to assert said defenses in behalf of said estate and in behalf of the heirs and distributees thereof, was also the attorney for the defendant Emma Schultz in the presentation of said claims, and prepared said claims for her, and procured their allowances for her from the probate court of the county of St. Louis against said Frederick Schultz's estate.

"(5) That the conflict of interest between the claim or claims of said Emma Schultz and the adverse interest of the estate of Frederick Schultz and of the heirs and distributees thereof disqualified the attorney of the estate from acting in behalf of said defendant Emma Schultz, and, upon his election to act in her behalf, disqualified him from acting as representative of the adverse interests of the estate and its distributees, including this plaintiff; that the action of said attorney in appearing on both sides of the case constituted and was a fraud, upon the court, and on the rights of this plaintiff, as well as a fraud upon the estate itself, and entitles plaintiff to have said judgment set aside, to the end that the just and valid defenses existing against said claims may be presented.

"(6) That plaintiff at all times relied on her brother; the defendant William Schultz, in his capacity as administrator of her deceased brother Frederick's estate, not to sacrifice her interest in said estate in behalf of the defendant Emma Schultz, and to do all things necessary and proper to protect said interest against all improper and fraudulent results, and through such reliance she relied or the attorney of said estate in the same manner and to the same extent; that said attorney kept her in ignorance of her rights in the premises, both as to matters of fact and matters of law; and said claim was allowed and became a judgment without her being present in court, and without her having any opportunity to appear and defend against the same.

"(7) That said claims were allowed during the May term, 1920, of the probate court of St. Louis county; that said term has long since lapsed and the time for taking an appeal therefrom has long since expired; that plaintiff did not learn of the fraud perpetrated, as aforesaid, nor of her rights in the premises, until long after the lapse of said term, and until the opportunity to take an appeal had become extinct.

"(8) That the claims so allowed in favor of the defendant Emma Schultz and against the estate of Frederick Schultz are large enough to absorb the whole of said estate, and the whole interest of this plaintiff therein, and, unless plaintiff is relieved by the decree of this honorable court, she will be defrauded of the whole of her interest in her deceased brother Frederick's estate; that plaintiff believes that her brother William was innocent of any intentional wrongdoing in the premises, and that the wrong was perpetrated solely by virtue of the fraud and covin of the defendant Emma Schultz and her attorney, who was also attorney of record for the estate; but if the court holds that, notwithstanding such adverse interest, said attorney was in law the agent of the defendant William Schultz, so as to make the defendant William Schultz, in his capacity as administrator, liable as principal for the acts of the attorney, then, and in that case, plaintiff alleges that, there was a conspiracy between the defendants Emma Schultz and William Schultz, as administrator of Frederick Schultz, acting by and through the attorney of said Frederick Schultz's estate, to perpetuate and consummate said fraud."

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:

"Further answering, this defendant states that the said claim was, and is, a just and meritorious one, and that the amounts in said claim constituted and represented money had and received by Frederick Schultz from this defendant, and the interest thereof from the date of the receipt of same by said Frederick Schultz, and the reasonable value of service rendered by this defendant to Frederick Schultz for a period of 19 years, at $25 per month.

"Further answering, defendant states that the plaintiff herein is her sister, and that defendant William Schultz is her brother; that both plaintiff and said defendant, William Schultz, knew at the time that her said demand was exhibited against said estate that it would be presented to the probate court for allowance, that it was a just and meritorious one for money had and received by Frederick Schultz from this defendant, and for services rendered said Frederick Schultz by this defendant; that at said time they concurred in and agreed that said demand should be allowed and represented to the judge of the probate court that said claim was a just and meritorious one; that said representations were made by defendant William Schultz in person, and by plaintiff through a letter produced to said judge of the probate court, and that by reason of the acts of plaintiff and defendant, William Schultz, administrator of the estate of Frederick Schultz, deceased, they are now, and should be, estopped from maintaining this action, the plaintiff from prosecuting her petition, and defendant William Schultz from asking to be joined as a party plaintiff with said Ida Teeters, and from joining with her in the allegations made in her petition, and prays the Court to so declare.

"Wherefore, having fully answered, this defendant asks to be dismissed hence with her costs."

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
27 cases
  • Wright v. Wright, 38244.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 1942
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Diciembre 1935
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Diciembre 1935
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 4 Septiembre 1933
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT