Schnur v. Dunker
| Decision Date | 05 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 21478.,21478. |
| Parties | SCHNUR v. DUNKER et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; M. Hartmann, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Elizabeth Schnur, a creditor of the estate of Nellie Stevenson, deceased, against Margaret Dunker, administratrix of the estate of Nellie Stevenson, deceased, and another. From the judgment, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Ryan & Hopewell, of St. Louis, for appellants.
John A. Dowdall and Jesse L. England, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
This proceeding was begun in the probate court of the city of St. Louis, upon the filing by plaintiff of certain statutory affidavits for the concealment of assets.
Plaintiff, Elizabeth Schnur, is a creditor of the estate of Nellie Stevenson, deceased, while defendants, Margaret Dunker, and her daughter, Miss Margaret Dunker, are, respectively, sister and niece of the deceased. Incidentally, the mother was also the administratrix of her sister's estate. Plaintiff is an undertaker, and her claim is for the expenses incurred in connection with the funeral of the deceased.
In the affidavits which she filed, plaintiff averred that she was a creditor of the estate, having theretofore presented and had allowed a claim in the sum of $747; that according to the inventory and appraisement filed by the administratrix, there was not sufficient property or effects of the deceased to pay plaintiff's demand; that plaintiff had good cause to, and did, believe that the sum of $1,155 was, prior to the death of the deceased, deposited by her in the First National Bank in St. Louis, for her account; that such sum was the property of, and belonged to, her estate; and that the defendants had such money in their possession, or under their control, and were concealing, or otherwise wrongfully withholding, the same from the estate.
The prayer was that defendants be cited and compelled to appear before the probate court, and answer under oath such questions as might be propounded to them concerning the ownership, concealment, and possession of said effects.
Citations were duly issued for both defendants, and on March 7, 1927, they were sustained by the probate court, from which judgment defendants appealed to the circuit court. In due course the cause came on for trial in the circuit court, where the citations, on March 26, 1930, were again sustained; the finding of the jury being that both defendants were concealing and withholding the sum of $1,155 belonging to the estate of the deceased. Thereupon the court entered its judgment, requiring defendants to account for said sum of $1,155, and to turn the same over to the duly qualified and acting administratrix of the estate of the deceased; and from the judgment so rendered, defendants have in turn appealed to this court.
The deceased died on April 7, 1926, and there is no dispute about the fact that there was a balance of $1,155 on deposit in the bank on that date to the account of "Mrs. Nellie Stevenson or Margaret Dunker, either or the survivor." It is to be borne in mind that the "Margaret Dunker" designated in the deposit was the niece of the deceased, as distinguished from her codefendant, the administratrix of the estate. The account was carried in the bank's savings department, and had been opened as a joint account on April 5, 1926, two days before the death of the deceased. Prior to this time the account had been carried in the sole name of the deceased.
The joint acccount was opened under the usual arrangement whereby all sums deposited or credited to the account were declared, upon a form of depositors' agreement prepared by the bank, to be the joint moneys or property of the depositors, payable on the check of either or the survivor, the amount to the credit of the account on the death of either of the depositors to be the sole and absolute property of the survivor, and payable on her check.
There is also no dispute about the fact that when the joint account was opened, the deceased was planning to enter a hospital to undergo an operation which she evidently feared might prove fatal. As to her purpose and intent in arranging for the joint account, defendants' evidence was that the deceased brought a signature card to their home, and requested her niece to sign it, saying: "You need attention and need a doctor; you can use this for the doctor or anything you want; I am going to have this changed over to you because I am going to the hospital to be operated on." Plaintiff's theory was that the joint account was opened by the deceased so that her niece would be in a position to draw upon it for the payment of the funeral expenses of the deceased, if such there should be.
Plaintiff had been acquainted with the deceased for eighteen or twenty years; and two days before her death the deceased visited the undertaking parlors, and left her passbook and insurance policy with the plaintiff. On the day the deceased died, defendants themselves came to plaintiff's place of business to make arrangements for the funeral, at which time plaintiff handed the passbook and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrellson v. Barks
...Mo. 251, 15 S.W. 962, 964.18 48 C.J.S. Joint Tenancy Sec. 3d, p. 917; Weber v. Jones, 240 Mo.App. 914, 222 S.W.2d 957; Schnur v. Dunker, Mo.App., 38 S.W.2d 282, 284; see Clevidence v. Mercantile Home Bank & Trust Co., 355 Mo. 904, 199 S.W.2d 1.19 See also Feltz v. Pavlik, Mo.App., 257 S.W.2......
-
Simon v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
...name form of the deposit, and such presumption is overcome by a showing of an intention contrary to the idea of joint ownership. Schnur v. Dunker, 38 S.W.2d 282; Craig v. Bradley, 153 Mo.App. 586; Murphy v. Wolfe, 45 S.W.2d 1079; In re Van Fossen, 13 S.W.2d 1076. Limitations do not operate ......
-
Clevidence v. Mercantile Home Bank & Trust Co.
...rebuttable presumption to a joint ownership with the attendant right of survivorship. Mercantile Bank v. Haley, 179 S.W.2d 916; Schnur v. Dunker, 38 S.W.2d 282; Melinik v. Meier, 124 S.W.2d 594. (2) The statute was enacted to protect banks in the payment of deposits made in the manner presc......
-
Melton v. Ensley
... ... Meier, Mo.App., 124 S.W.2d 594, 597(3); Murphy v. Wolfe, 329 Mo. 545, 45 S.W.2d 1079, 1081(1); Schnur v. Dunker, Mo.App., 38 S.W.2d 282, 284(1--2); Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Smith, 320 Mo. 989, 9 S.W.2d 58, 63(1, 2); Ball v. Mercantile Trust ... ...