Salia v. Pillman
Decision Date | 20 November 1931 |
Parties | E. Salia, Alvin Gorton and W. A. Carter, George Harp and H. B. Raney, Co-Partners Doing Business as Carter & Harp Company, v. Emma Pillman, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. John W Calhoun, Judge.
Transferred to St. Louis Court of Appeals.
Douglas W. Robert for appellant.
S C. Rogers for respondents.
This case comes to the writer on reassignment. Respondents were plaintiffs in a civil proceeding against Emma Pillman in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. In their petition they alleged, among other things, that Josiah and Isaiah Pillman were partners engaged in the produce business under the name of Pillman Brothers; that Isaiah died, and Josiah, as surviving partner, was granted letters of administration on the partnership estate; that as surviving partner in charge of and administering the estate of Pillman Brothers he executed and delivered to one Samuel B. Blair, deeds dated April 3, 1924, purporting to convey certain lands in St. Louis and Franklin counties, Missouri, belonging to said estate, pursuant to an order of the probate court to pay debts allowed against said partnership estate; that by quitclaim deeds dated the same day and reciting nominal considerations the said Blair, joined by his wife therein, conveyed the same lands to Josiah Pillman and Emma Pillman, who thereafter, by quitclaim deeds dated September 9, 1924, and reciting nominal considerations, conveyed the same lands to Roy C. F. Fick; that on the same day the said Fick, by quitclaim deeds reciting nominal considerations, conveyed the same lands to Josiah Pillman and Emma Pillman, his wife; that thereafter on the 3rd day of October, 1924, the said Josiah Pillman died, leaving defendant as his widow surviving, to whom letters testamentary on the estate of said deceased were granted on October 22, 1924; and that on June 18, 1925, plaintiffs recovered certain judgments against the estate of the said Josiah Pillman, deceased, in the Probate Court of the City of St. Louis, where said administration was pending. Said petition further alleged that the said Josiah Pillman and Emma Pillman fraudulently conspired with each other by the aforesaid conveyances to vest an estate by the entirety in them in said lands, thereby rendering the said Josiah Pillman wholly insolvent and defeating plaintiffs' then existing claims upon which said judgments are based.
Plaintiffs' prayer was that "the court ascertain the exact amounts due plaintiffs and each of them and that the said property hereinabove described be subjected to the payment of plaintiffs' said judgments, and if the same be not paid within a time limited by this court, that said property be sold at public vendue, and out of the proceeds of said sale the plaintiffs' debts and demands, and each of them, be paid in full, together with interest and the costs of this case, and the remainder to the parties entitled thereto, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem meet, just and proper."
Defendant went to trial on her second amended answer which consisted of a general denial, pleas to the jurisdiction, allegations of laches and misjoinder, and allegations that the sale of said land was not fraudulently made but duly made under an order of said probate court. Plaintiffs' reply was a general denial.
Upon a full hearing of the cause judgment was rendered for plaintiffs. We quote the finding and judgment of the chancellor as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Place v. Bland
...63; Devoto v. Devoto, 326 Mo. 511, 31 S.W.2d 805; First Natl. Bank of Monett v. Kinser, 341 Mo. 819, 109 S.W.2d 1221; Salia v. Pillman, 328 Mo. 1212, 43 S.W.2d 1038; Herriman v. Creason, 181 S.W.2d 502; Gibbany Walker, 342 Mo. 156, 113 S.W.2d 792. (2) He who seeks equity must be willing to ......
-
Herriman v. Creason
...defendant's title," citing Jones v. Hogan, 211 Mo. 45, 109 S.W. 641, and Brannock v. Magoon, 216 Mo. 722, 116 S.W. 500. The decree in the Salia case at least conditionally title should be divested out of defendant, although the petition had not so prayed. Our holding that this did not make ......
-
Cordia v. Matthes
...... exclusive jurisdiction of the appeal is in the Supreme Court. Mo. Const., Art. VI, Sec. 12; Salia v. Pillman, 328. Mo. 1212, 43 S.W.2d 1038; Brennecke v. Rieman, 102. S.W.2d 874; Balz v. Nelson, 171 Mo. 682, 72 S.W. 527; Thomas v. Scott, 214 ......
-
Cordia v. Matthes., 36454.
...is directly involved, and exclusive jurisdiction of the appeal is in the Supreme Court. Mo. Const., Art. VI, Sec. 12; Salia v. Pillman, 328 Mo. 1212, 43 S.W. (2d) 1038; Brennecke v. Rieman, 102 S.W. (2d) 874; Balz v. Nelson, 171 Mo. 682, 72 S.W. 527; Thomas v. Scott, 214 Mo. 430, 119 S.W. 1......