Pitts v. Weakley
Decision Date | 14 March 1900 |
Citation | 155 Mo. 109,55 S.W. 1055 |
Parties | PITTS et al. v. WEAKLEY et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Plaintiffs sought to establish a trust in stock of a corporation formed to administer their father's property and pay creditors' claims. The father, believing he was to die before the claims were paid, caused certain of the stock to be delivered to plaintiffs' sister, and the only evidence as to the terms of the delivery was the alleged statement by the sister that the father, when handing her the stock, told her to keep it; that it was all he had on earth. Plaintiffs refused to allow the sister to testify as to the terms of the delivery, and failed to offer a deposition made by her, in which she fully explained the terms thereof. Shortly before decedent's death, the sister transferred the stock to her husband, in whom the father had great confidence; and the husband, who claimed no interest therein, managed the corporation after the father's death. One of the plaintiffs testified that shortly after the father's death the sister had voluntarily stated to her that decedent had delivered the stock to her for "business reasons," and that she was to hold it for herself and certain of the plaintiffs; but the sister did not state in what proportions they were to share it, or for what reasons the stock was held. Other witnesses stated that the sister had declared that she was willing to turn over the share of one of the plaintiffs to a trustee, if plaintiff's husband could not get hold of it, and that the sister's husband had stated in her presence that she held the stock in trust for the children. Held insufficient to establish a trust of the stock in plaintiff's favor.
Appeal from circuit court, Buchanan county; Charles F. Strop, Judge.
Action by Edna Pitts and others against A. B. Weakley and others to establish a trust. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Brown & Dolman, for appellants. Thos. F. Ryan, Jas. W. Boyd, and John M. Stewart, for respondents.
Plaintiffs and defendant Susan Weakley are the children and only heirs at law of Dudley M. Steele, deceased. The object of this suit is to establish by decree a trust in favor of plaintiffs and their sister, Mrs. Weakley, in 794 shares of stock, which were given to the latter by their father shortly before his death, which occurred March 10, 1896. The petition states that plaintiffs' father caused the certificate of the stock to be made out in the name of his daughter, defendant Susan Weakley, in August, 1895, but did not deliver it to her then, nor inform her of it, but retained it in his possession until March 1, 1896. The act of creating the alleged trust and its terms are thus stated in the petition: "That on or about the 1st day of March, 1896, said Dudley M. Steele, being then aged and infirm, and desiring to make some suitable provision for all his children alike, handed to her, said Susan Weakley, the said certificates of stock, and gave her possession thereof, not for her own use and benefit, but in trust for the use and benefit of all his children in equal proportions." The petition also states that at the time this stock was the only property Dudley M. Steele owned; that, after receiving the certificate, Mrs. Weakley transferred it to her husband, without consideration, under his influence and persuasion, in order to avoid the trust, and he now holds it; that defendants Woodson, Lemon, and McDonald, as a committee or trustees, have some interest in the stock as collateral for the security for certain debts of which the plaintiffs are not particularly informed, but that those debts are otherwise sufficiently secured. The prayer is that the title to the stock be devested out of Weakley, and vested in plaintiffs and Mrs. Weakley in equal proportions; that the old certificates be canceled, and new ones issued to the parties respectively as their interests appear, to be held subject to any lawful claim of the defendants Woodson, Lemon, and McDonald. The answer of defendants was a general denial. The trial resulted in a decree for the plaintiffs as prayed, from which in due course the defendants have appealed.
In order to properly appreciate the evidence upon which the respondents rely to prove the terms of a trust as charged in their petition, which evidence consists alone in the testimony of witnesses as to admissions alleged to have been made by Mrs. Weakley after her father's death, it is important that we should weigh it in the light of the circumstances which surround the case. The following is a fair history of the case, taken from appellants' statement (the figures in brackets refer to the pages in the printed record):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gwin v. Gwin
...express trust in personalty. Watson v. Payne, 143 Mo. App. 421; Harding v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 276 Mo. 136, 207 S.W. 68; Pitts v. Weakley, 155 Mo. 109. (11) Same rule of burden of proof applies to plaintiff relying on a fraudulent concealment or other improper acts to prevent the bar......
-
Platt v. Huegel
...a reasonable doubt. Harding v. Trust Co., 276 Mo. 136; Northrip v. Burge, 255 Mo. 641; Wiehtrechter v. Miller, 276 Mo. 322; Pitts v. Weakley, 155 Mo. 109; Carroll v. Woods, 132 Mo. App. 501; Darling v. Potts, 118 Mo. 506; Crawford v. Jones, 163 Mo. 577; Brinkman v. Sunker, 174 Mo. 709; Vier......
-
Ambruster v. Ambruster
...parol evidence the proof must be so strong as to leave no room for doubt as to its existence, as well as to its essential terms. Pitts v. Weakley, 155 Mo. 109; Harding v. Trust Co., 276 Mo. 136; Forrester v. Moore, 77 Mo. 651; Burdette v. May, 100 Mo. 13; King v. Isley, 116 Mo. 155; Curd v.......
-
Cotton v. Ship-by-Truck Co.
...admissions of Hartz were not sufficient to establish the fact that he was the servant of the defendant, Ship-By-Truck Company. Pitts v. Weakley, 155 Mo. 109, 55 S.W. 1063; Kurz v. Greenlease, 52 S.W. (2d) 499; State ex rel. Kurz v. Greenlease, 64 S.W. (2d) 638; Rector v. Mulford, 185 S.W. 2......