La Rue v. La Rue

Decision Date24 May 1927
Docket NumberNo. 25858.,25858.
Citation294 S.W. 723
PartiesLA RUE et al. v. LA RUE.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; A. B. Frey, Judge.

Suit by Paulina F. E. (also known as Lena) La Rue and others against Elizabeth La Rue. Decree for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

Robert Walker, of Hermann, and William

Hilkerbaumer, of St. Louis, for appellants. John R. Davis, of St. Louis, for respondent.

ELLISON, C.

This is a suit in equity to establish an implied or resulting trust, filed December 29, 1922. By the decree of the trial court the plaintiffs' hill was dismissed and the title to the real estate in controversy—a dwelling house and parcel of ground in St. Louis—hereinafter called the Bates street property, was quieted in the defendant. The plaintiffs have appealed on the sole ground that under the evidence the decree should have been for them. They are the heirs of George La Rue, who died July 29, 1922, and his widow by a second marriage, Paulina La Rue—impleaded by and through her guardian, she being a person of unsound mind. The defendant respondent is the reputed third wife of the deceased.

A review of the record and a consideration of the whole case on its merits have convinced us that the cause was rightly decided by the learned chancellor who tried it. In accordance with the statutory mandate we set out a statement of the facts and legal conclusions which induce us to that view.

The petition conventionally recites that La Rue purchased and paid for the real estate involved and took title in the name of the defendant; that he died thus owning the land, and occupying it as a homestead; that the plaintiff widow in consequence is entitled to dower and homestead, and subject thereto the plaintiff heirs to specified undivided fractional interests in the fee. The prayer is for divestiture of title out of the defendant into the plaintiffs according to their respective interests, for a determination of the interests of all the parties, for possession and costs, and for general relief. As characterizing the intention of the deceased, La Rue, it is alleged:

"That said George La Rue took title to said real estate in the name of defendant for the purpose of concealing his ownership thereof and of defrauding and depriving these plaintiffs of their respective rights as widow and heirs of the said George La Rue."

The defendant's answer is a general denial and a plea of the 10-year statute of limitations (section 1305, R. S. Mo., 1919), coupled with an affirmation that she bought the real estate in controversy and paid the consideration out of her own separate means. As forecast by the pleadings, and as recognized in the briefs of counsel, the ultimate issue of fact is as to the ownership of the purchase money passing in the transaction.

The undisputed evidence is that George La Rue was twice married. From his first wife, Catherine, who died in August, 1881, Affirmed. I he had one child, Frederick, who left at his death in 1899 two sons, the appellants Math as and Peter. Four months after the demise of his first wife, in December, 1881, George married the appellant Paulina La Rue, who bore him a year later a daughter, the appellant Paulina F. E. La Rue, also known a Lena, and hereinafter so designated. In 1883 when the latter was about a year old, the former became afflicted with some form of melancholia, and, whether for that reason or because driven away, as one of plaintiffs' witnesses surmised, a neighbor woman took both mother and daughter from La Rue's home to her own, and shortly thereafter the father of Paulina carried her and her infant daughter back to his home in Montgomery county thence Paulina was presently transferred to an insane asylum in St. Louis, where she since has remained. Lena has continued t, live in the home of her maternal grandfather

In preparation for her confinement Paulin, employed as domestic servant and attendant the respondent, Elizabeth La Rue, who then was a girl about 17 years old, one of six children of humble parentage; their father being a common laborer living in a renter house. Elizabeth continued in her employment as a servant in the La Rue home from before the birth of Lena in 1882 until the departure of Paulina and Lena in 1883, and thereafter until 1885 performed additional work as an assistant in the office from whirl the deceased, La Rue, conducted a retail coal business. The uncontradicted testimony of Elizabeth (though doubted by appellants in their brief) is that during this 2-year period George La Rue made several trips to Pennsylvania, where he had relatives, the longest for about two weeks.

In February, 1885, George proposed marriage to Elizabeth, exhibiting a paper purporting to be an authenticated copy of a decree of the Supreme Court of Huntington county, Pa., dated February 24, 1885, granting to him, as plaintiff, a divorce from the appellant Paulina La Rue. Elizabeth testified she read over the decree and believed in genuine, and for that reason never submitted it to a lawyer. He also showed her a copy of a newspaper called the Springfield Weekly Journal, vol. 1, No. 48, dated Springfield Mo., Thursday, February 19, 1895, containing an advertisement on the fourth page notifying the defendant in a suit between George La Rue and Paulina La Rue "to be at Mapleton, Huntington county, and state of Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, the 24th day of February, 1885," and failing, judgment would be rendered against Um. Elizabeth preserved this paper because, she said, "It was to my interest." Objection was made by counsel for appellants to the introduction of these documents, unless respondent would concede both the divorce decree and notice were null and void. This being agreed, they were admitted in evidence, "to show defendant's good faith in entering marriage with George La Rue." Appellants' inference is that the two papers were procured in the perpetration of a scheme, on the part of both George and Elizabeth, to fortify against a possible prosecution for bigamy following a contemplated bogus marriage.

A ceremony of marriage between George and Elizabeth was performed at St. Louis on April 21, 1885. They lived together before the world as man and wife for 37 years until his death in 1922 at the age of nearly 85 years, she bearing him four children (not parties to the record), who, with her, constituted his family and bore his name. She was a party to seven of the deeds introduced in evidence by appellants to show the real estate transactions hereinafter mentioned, and in all of them her surname was given as "La Rue," in four of them, wherein she joined as grantor with George La Rue, she was described as his wife, and, finally, when this suit was instituted by the appellants she was sued as Elizabeth "La Rue."

On the main issue, to establish their case the appellants attempted to trace into the purchase price of the Bates street property proceeds from the sale of other pieces of real estate theretofore owned by George La Rue. In fact, the appellants' whole showing consisted of a narrative by their three witnesses of the La Rue family history prior to 1895, plus the deeds evidencing the real estate transfers just referred to, plus certain alleged admissions, inconsistencies, and improbabilities in the testimony of the respondent, Elizabeth La Rue.

It appears that at and prior to the time of the void marriage between George and Elizabeth, the former and his son, Frederick, owned two adjoining lots in St. Louis designated by street number as 7911 and 7913, respectively, Pennsylvania avenue. Their title was derived from Catherine La Rue, deceased, mother of Frederick and first wife of George. George, it seems, had, or claimed, the fee title to the lot at No. 7913, which was vacant, and a life estate in the lot at No. 7911, with the fee in Frederick. There was a small frame cottage on the latter lot in which the La Rue family lived. It was to this home that Elizabeth went when she entered the household as a servant, and here she lived as a member of the family after her supposed marriage, for about 10 years until 1895. In that year Frederick, married, whereupon George executed a quitclaim deed of both lots to Frederick for a consideration of $1. Elizabeth did not join in this deed and George was described as "husband of Catherine La Rue, who died intestate in the city of St. Louis about August, 1881." On the same day Frederick quitclaimed the vacant lot at 7913 Pennsylvania avenue to Elizabeth for a like consideration of $1.

Forthwith a house was built on the vacant lot into which George and Elizabeth moved; possession of the old house being surrendered to Frederick. Elizabeth testified that this new dwelling house was built with her own money. There is nothing in the record specifically to the contrary, but the appellants dispute her, claiming Elizabeth had no separate means; but of this, more presently. At all events, George and Elizabeth lived in the new home at 7913 Pennsylvania avenue for about 10 years until they sold the property.

In the meantime, in February, 1900, George La Rue foreclosed a mortgage securing a loan he held against a lot on Michigan avenue in St. Louis, and bid in the property at the foreclosure sale. He and Elizabeth deeded the lot for an expressed consideration of $2,000 in October of the same year to Fred W. Hoertel, who, about three weeks later, conveyed the same to Elizabeth for a like consideration.

At the time of George's frustrate marriage to Elizabeth in 1885 and from then until 1903, he owned, also, a lot at 300 Schirmer street in St. Louis, which was used for his retail coal business and coalyard. This, it will be remembered, made three pieces of real estate owned by him and Elizabeth, viz, the Property at 7913 Pennsylvania avenue, the Michigan avenue property, and the Schirmer street property; the title to the former two being held by Elizabeth and the title to the latter being in George.

In 190...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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