Pierce v. Pierce

• Decision Date: 01 November 1909
• Citation: 122 S.W. 1147,139 Mo.App. 416
• Parties: DELLA PIERCE, Appellant, v. J. K. PIERCE et al., Respondents
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

122 S.W. 1147

139 Mo.App. 416

DELLA PIERCE, Appellant, v. J. K. PIERCE et al., Respondents

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

November 1, 1909

Appeal from the Macon Circuit Court.--Hon. Nat. M. Shelton, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment reversed.

R. S Matthews & Son, H. A. White and R. W. Barrow for appellant.

(1) John C. Pierce, in his last will and testament, made and provided in item third of his will, that his estate should be converted into money and distributed to his heirs as theirs only "after the death of my said wife, and the payment of her lawful debts and funeral expenses." The deceased John C. Pierce, had the right to make the above provision in his will, and the same is payable as directed in his will. Presbyterian Church v. McElhinney, 61 Mo. 540. (2) A suit in equity is the proper remedy to collect the lawful debt of Paulina J. Pierce vs. the Estate of John C. Pierce. The estate of John C. Pierce is not closed in the probate court. The executors had possession and control of the real estate when the suit was begun and tried. The executors of John C. Pierce, deceased, and all his heirs who are residuary legatees when the debts of John C. Pierce and the "lawful debts" of Paulina J. Pierce are paid and are properly made parties defendant. Presbyterian Church v. McElhinney, 61 Mo. 540; State ex rel. v Lettman, 103 Mo. 558 and cases cited; Crowley v. McCrony, 45 Mo. 350 and case cited. (3) No statutes of limitations applicable to the presentation of claims within two years from the granting of letters can have any application in this case. The special statutes of limitations in regard to debts of a descendant only have an application to debts in existence at the date of the death of deceased. Morgan v. Gibson, 42 Mo.App. 244; Jamison v. Jamison, 72 Mo. 640; Tenny v. Lasley, 80 Mo. 664; Miller v. Wood, 8 Mo. 170; State v. Lihman, 134 Mo. 168.

B. R. Dysart and A. A. Gilstrap for respondent.

The defendants submit that the said former judgment was not and is not binding and conclusive upon these defendants, and the said judgment was not competent evidence to establish the plaintiff's claim against the estate of John C. Pierce, deceased. It is elementary law that judgments do not bind strangers, and the doctrine is so familiar that it has long since merged into a maxim: "Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet." 2 Black on Judgments, sec. 600 et seq. In order to make a matter res adjudicata, there must be a concurrence of the following conditions: Identity of the subject-matter of the suit. Identity of the cause of action. Identity of persons and parties to the action. 2 Black on Judgments, sec. 610. This elementary doctrine of res adjudicata has been held and enforced by numerous decisions of the appellate courts of this State. Womach v. St. Joseph, 201 Mo. 467; Shannon v. Mastin, 108 S.W. 1116; Dugge v. Stampe, 73 Mo. 513; Henry v. Woods, 77 Mo. 277.

OPINION

BROADDUS, P. J.

This is a suit in equity to charge the estate of John C. Pierce with a debt contracted by his wife subsequent to his death. John C. Pierce died testate on the 4th day of March, 1900. By the terms of his will his wife was to have the use of all his estate, with rents and profits during her life; and the remainder he disposed of in the following language: "After the death of my said wife, and the payment of her lawful debts and funeral expenses, it is my will that all the rest and remainder of my property both real and personal, be sold and reduced to money, for the purpose of distribution among my children and descendants as hereinafter provided, and my executors hereinafter named are hereby fully authorized and empowered to sell and convey the same, and execute bills of sale and deeds of conveyance necessary and appropriate to convey and vest the title to said property and real estate in the purchaser." The deceased owned little or no personal property at his death. He owned however certain real estate which the plaintiff by these proceedings seeks to charge with the indebtedness of the widow Paulina.

Paulina the widow, died in September, 1904, more than four years after the death of her husband. She died leaving no estate. An administrator however was appointed by the probate court, and the plaintiff presented a claim for allowance against her estate for services rendered after the death of her husband which the court allowed, amounting to the sum of $ 1,100. It is this judgment that plaintiff seeks to...