Sehr v. Lindemann

Decision Date14 November 1899
Citation153 Mo. 276,54 S.W. 537
PartiesSEHR et al. v. LINDEMANN et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; John A. Talty, Judge.

Proceeding by Antionette Sehr and others against Maria Lindemann and others to contest a will. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The statement of this case made by respondents is plain, impartial, and full, and we accordingly adopt it. It is as follows:

"Respondents' Statement.

"The proceeding is one to contest the validity of the will of Hermann Lindemann, deceased. The validity of the will is assailed on the ground of the want of testamentary capacity of the testator, and of the exercise of undue influence over him by defendants. The charge of undue influence was not in the original petition. It was created by an amendment after the trial had progressed for a considerable time. The plaintiffs are the three children of the testator by his first marriage and the defendants are his surviving widow and his four children by her. At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendants, which was accordingly done.

"The will was executed on April 22, 1893, having been drawn on that day by Mr. Gerhard F. Muessmann, assisted by Mr. J. H. Zumbalen, both attorneys at law, and was witnessed by these gentlemen. The testator died on June 7, 1896. It appeared from the testimony that the testator, Hermann Lindemann, had, for nearly 50 years, been a market gardener in a small way, on a tract of land (about 19 acres) on Meramec street, three blocks west of Grand avenue, in the south-western part of St. Louis. He was twice married, and had three children, the plaintiffs, by his first wife. Seven or eight years after her death he married his stepdaughter, who is the surviving widow. By her he had two sons and two daughters, who, with their mother, are the defendants. The plaintiffs left the paternal roof some 22 or 26 years before the will was made, married, and raised families of their own. They were opposed to their father's marriage with his stepdaughter, thought that marriage was wrong and illegal, and repeatedly expressed this opinion to the testator. The children of the second wife who were aged, respectively, 32, 29, 25, and 19 years at the time the will was made, remained at home, unmarried, and assisted the testator in carrying on his gardening business, the girls, as well as the boys, working in the field. For years before the testator's death he did no manual labor on the place himself, but simply directed the work of these children, who continued thus to labor for him until his death.

"The circumstances attending the drawing and execution of the will, as testified to by the attesting witnesses thereto, are that on April 21, 1893, defendant Mathias Lindemann called at the office of Gerhard F. Muessmann, an attorney, and stated that his father, the testator, was ill, and wished Mr. Muessmann to call upon him and do some writing. Mr. Muessmann had known the testator for nearly 25 years, and had done work for him before. On the next day, April 22d, Mr. Muessmann went to the Lindemann house, Mr. Zumbalen accompanying him, at his request. They got there about 9 o'clock in the morning, and, being shown into testator's room by his wife, found him in bed. Mr. Zumbalen thus details what took place: `He [testator] said to Mr. Muessmann that he had sent for him to make his will. We spoke in German entirely. Mr. Muessmann asked him to give the names of all his children and their ages. Mr. Lindemann said that he had been twice married, and that he had three children by his first wife, and gave us their names. He said his first wife's name was Clara; her maiden name was Voss. He said he had four children by his second wife, and he stated their names and their ages. I think he was asked by Mr. Muessmann specifically for their ages, and he stated their ages. Then Mr. Lindemann asked Mr. Muessmann whether it was incumbent on him, under the laws of Missouri, to divide his property among his children, or what rights he had as the owner of the property. Mr. Muessmann told him that it was necessary for him to mention all his children in the will, but that he could give them what he chose, or give them nothing, if he did not choose to; that he could do with what he owned just as he pleased, provided he mentioned the children in the will. Then Mr. Lindemann said he wished to give the three children of his first wife, Mrs. Von Der Haar, Mrs. Schnieders, and Mrs. Sehr $25 each, and that he had two lots in Carondelet, on Davis street, which were of slight value, which he wished to give Mrs. Lindemann absolutely. He said they were of slight value, and that he also wanted Mrs. Lindemann to have all the balance of his property, real and personal, for life, and after her death it should be divided among her children. He said he wanted the son Mathias to have a certain six acres. I have forgotten which direction from the house the tract lay which Mathias was to have; but, at any rate, Mathias was to have a certain six acres of the home place, and the other son, John Joseph, was to have another six acres, which he described as being on the other side of the house; and that the remainder was to go to the two girls, the children of the present Mrs. Lindemann, in equal shares, after her death. Mr. Muessmann then asked him whether he had ever had a survey made of that tract, so that he could describe the particular tracts which he wished to give the two boys in the will with sufficient accuracy to identify them, and Mr. Lindemann said, "No; he had never had a survey made;" that he had intended having one made, but put it off, and had not done it. Then Mr. Muessmann suggested to him it would be impracticable to make a specific division of any specific part of the tract, on account of the impossibility of describing it sufficiently without a survey, and that he had better give it to them in undivided parts. Then Mr. Muessmann asked him for the deed to the property on Meramec street, where they lived, and he said he could not find it; that he didn't know whether he had it or not. Then Mr. Muessmann asked him whether he could produce the tax bills for that property, and he said, "Yes," and called Mrs. Lindemann, and asked her to get them, saying they were in the chest standing beside the bed. She could not open the chest, and called in the son Mathias, and he succeeded in unlocking it, and finally found the tax bills in it. The testator said he was assessed with more land than he had; that they had assessed him with 21 or 22 acres, whatever it was (I have forgotten what the tax bills showed), and that he had only about 19 acres, and that the division therefore should be made among the children in nineteenths; that each of the two boys should have, after their mother's death, six-nineteenths of that tract of land, and the remainder, which would be seven-nineteenths, was to be divided by the two daughters of his second marriage. Then Mr. Muessmann asked him whom he wanted to name as executor of his will, and he said his wife should be the executrix. Mr. Muessmann...

To continue reading

Request your trial
100 cases
  • Wood v. Wood
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1917
    ...in directing a verdict for the defendants upon this issue." In Gibony v. Foster, 230 Mo. 106, 130 S.W. 314, the court say that in Sehr v. Lindemann, supra, it was expressly ruled that, making out a prima facie case by the proponents of the will, it then devolved upon the contestants to esta......
  • Proffer v. Proffer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1938
    ...145 S.W. 1160; Sayre v. Trustees of Princeton Univ., 192 Mo. 95, 90 S.W. 797; Hughes v. Rader, 183 Mo. 630, 82 S.W. 54; Sehr v. Lindemann, 153 Mo. 276, 54 S.W. 542; Maddox v. Maddox, 114 Mo. 35, 21 S.W. 502. (c) In the performance of this solemn judicial function, the courts of this State u......
  • Clark v. Commerce Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 20, 1933
    ...v. Shaner, 291 Mo. 297; Knadler v. Stelzer, 19 S.W. (2d) 1054; Bushman v. Barlow, 292 S.W. 1039; McFadin v. Catron, 138 Mo. 197; Sehr v. Lindemann, 153 Mo. 276; Doherty v. Gilmore, 136 Mo. 414; Kleinlein v. Krauss, 209 S.W. 933; Kuehn v. Ritter, 233 S.W. 5; Riley v. Sherwood, 144 Mo. 354; B......
  • Hughes v. Rader
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1904
    ...v. Carlisle, 162 Mo. 634; Kirschman v. Scott, 166 Mo. 214; Wood v. Carpenter, 166 Mo. 465; McFadin v. Catron, 138 Mo. 197; Sehr v. Lindemann, 153 Mo. 276; Cash v. Lust, 142 Mo. 630; Thompson v. 99 Mo. 160; Norton v. Paxton, 110 Mo. 456. (b) The presumption is in favor of the validity of the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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