State ex rel. Nelson v. Hammett

• Citation: 203 S.W.2d 115,240 Mo.App. 307
• Parties: The State of Missouri, at the Relation and to Use of Edgar F. Nelson, Executor of the Estate of Christina B. Rieger, Deceased, Respondent, v. Evan H. Hammett, and Standard Accident Insurance Corporation of Michigan, a Corporation, Appellants
• Decision Date: 02 June 1947
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas

203 S.W.2d 115

240 Mo.App. 307

The State of Missouri, at the Relation and to Use of Edgar F. Nelson, Executor of the Estate of Christina B. Rieger, Deceased, Respondent, v. Evan H. Hammett, and Standard Accident Insurance Corporation of Michigan, a Corporation, Appellants

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

June 2, 1947

Delivered

Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County; Hon. Emory H. Wright Judge.

Reversed and Remanded.

Jay L. Oldham and Evan H. Hammett for appellant.

(1) The Court ruled erroneously in overruling appellant Hammett's motion for a directed verdict, and also in overruling appellant Hammett's motion for judgment on the pleadings for the reason that appellant Hammett's pre-existing rights in said real estate were superior to any claim of respondent, and for that reason appellant Hammett has the right to collaterally attack the appointment of respondent as purported executor of the estate of Christina B. Rieger deceased, on the grounds of fraud and perjury in the procurement of said appointment by respondent. Abington v. Townsend, 271 Mo. 602, 615, 197 S.W. 253; McEwen, Appt., v. Sterling State Bank, Respt., 222 Mo.App. 660, 58 S.W. 2d 702. (2) The appointment of respondent as purported executor of the estate of Christina B. Rieger, deceased, is void, for the further reason that Hon. Leslie A. Welch, Judge of the Probate Court of Jackson County, Missouri, exceeded the jurisdiction of said Court in making said order of appointment without citing appellant Hammett into said Probate Court for the purpose of being heard on the false charge of possession of the purported lost last will of Christina B. Rieger. R. S. Mo., 1939, Sec. 569; 68 C. J., "Wills," Sec. 604b, p. 878, "Discovery and Compelling Production"; Williams v. Bailey, 177 N.C. 37, 97 S.E. 721. (3) The verdict and judgment are in error on the issues of incompetency of the grantor, Mrs. Rieger, and any undue influence on the part of the attorney grantee, appellant Hammett, notary. There was a complete failure of proof on both issues by respondent. Loehr v. Starke, (en banc) 332 Mo. 131, 56 S.W. 2d 772, 777; Hedrick v. Hedrick, 350 Mo. 716, 168 S.W. 2d 69; Beckman v. Beckman, 331 Mo. 1133, 52 S.W. 2d 818; Hamilton v. Steininger, 350 Mo. 698, 168 S.W. 2d 59; Boardman, Adm'r, etc., of Jacob Svenson, Deceased, Respt., v. Lorentzen, Appt., 155 Wis. 566, 145 N.W. 750, 52 L. R. A. (N.S.) 476; Dixon v. Dixon, 236 Ky. 608, 33 S.W. 2d 611; Teckenbrook v. McLaughlin, 209 Mo. 533, 108 S.W. 46, 51; Vining v. Ramage, 319 Mo. 65, 3 S.W. 2d 712, 721; Stubblefield v. Husband, 341 Mo. 38, 106 S.W. 2d 419, 423; Horn v. Owens, 171 S.W. 2d 585; Chadwell v. Reed, 198 Mo. 359, 95 S.W. 227; Bushman v. Bushman, 311 Mo. 551, 279 S.W. 122.

H. M. Langworthy, Clyde J. Linde and Robert B. Langworthy, for appellant Standard Accident Insurance Company.

Langworthy, Matz & Linde of counsel.

(1) No submissible case was made against the defendant Hammett for the reasons pointed out in his separate brief, and therefore the court below erred in overruling the motions of both defendants for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. 43 American Jurisprudence, Sec. 415, p. 185. (2) Relator's petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against this defendant. State ex rel. and to the Use of Dominick et al. v. Farmer et al., 201 S.W. 955, 957 Mo.App. (3) There is no evidence that either the notarial certificates mentioned in evidence or the official conduct of the notary was the proximate cause of the loss claimed to have been sustained by the deceased and by the relator. State ex rel. Zuber v. Hunter et al., 46 S.W. 2d 216; State ex rel. Scruggs v. Packard et al., 199 Mo.App. 53, 201 S.W. 953; State of Missouri to the Use of Mathews v. Boughton et al., 58 Mo.App. 155; State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Central Surety & Insurance Corporation, 232 Mo.App. 748, 112 S.W. 2d 607; Nolley et al. v. Callaway County Court, 11 Mo. 447, 462; People ex rel. Young et al. v. Nederlander et al., 143 N.W. 753; McBride v. Schoen et al., 8 P.2d 888; Elsea et al. v. Smith et al., 273 Mo. 396, 202 S.W. 1071; Section 3428, R. S. Mo. 1939; Gross v. Watts et al., 206 Mo. 373, 104 S.W. 30, 36; Commonwealth to the use of Ulshofer v. Turner et al., 17 A.2d 352. (4) The present relator is not a proper party plaintiff to assert the cause of action, if any, alleged against this defendant. Section 13364, R. S. Mo. 1939; Abington v. Townsend et al., 271 Mo. 602, 197 S.W. 253, 256; McEwen v. Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W. 2d 702, 707; 31 American Jurisprudence, Sec. 581, p. 179. (5) It is broader than, and contradictory to, the evidence. Gundelach v. Compagnie General Transatlantique, 41 S.W.2d 1, 2; Huger v. Doerr et al., 170 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Mo. App.). (6) It (Instruction No. 1) authorizes the finding of a verdict without requiring the finding of essential fact issues necessary to establish a basis for the verdict, and assumes the truth of certain facts which are in dispute, and is tantamount to a direction for the plaintiff. Taylor v. Kansas City, 342 Mo. 109, 112 S.W.2d 562, 567 (1937); Kirkham v. Jenkins Music Co. et al., 340 Mo. 911, 104 S.W.2d 234, 237 (1937); Weinel v. Hesse et al., 174 S.W.2d 903, 907 (St. Louis Court of Appeals). (7) It (Instruction No. 2) contains an improper statement as to the presumption of undue influence. Ross v. Pendergast, 182 S.W.2d 307, 309; McCloskey v. Koplar, 46 S.W.2d 557, 561, 563; Harke v. Haase, 75 S.W.2d 1001; Dove v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 163 S.W.2d 548, 550, 551; Lampe v. Franklin American Trust Co., 96 S.W.2d 710, 720; State ex rel. v. Detroit Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Ellison, 187 S.W. 23, 26; Swoboda v. Nowak, 255 S.W. 1079, 1083 (Mo. App.); McCune v. Daniels, 251 S.W. 458, 461 (Mo. App.); DeWitt v. Syfon, 211 S.W. 716, 718 (Mo. App.); Haycraft v. Grigsby, 88 Mo.App. 354, 361; Nelson v. Hammett, 189 S.W.2d 238, 243; Linderman v. Carmin, 164 S.W. 614, 618; Ham v. Barrett, 28 Mo. 388, 389. (8) The court below erred in admitting hearsay evidence against this defendant, and in permitting the relator to cross-examine one of his own witnesses. Blair v. Perpetual Insurance Company, 10 Mo. 559, 566, 567; 31 C. J. S., Sec. 366, pp. 1146-47; 43 American Jurisprudence, Sec. 448, p. 211; The Cheltenham Fire Brick Company v. Isaac Cook, 44 Mo. 29, 37; State to Use of Squire and Reed v. Bird & Gilbert, 22 Mo. 470, 474; Gallagher v. S. Z. Schutte Lumber Company, 273 S.W. 213, 220. (9) The court below erred in excluding the testimony of defendant Hammett concerning his agreement with Mrs. Rieger after the relator had read into evidence the separate answers of defendant Hammett concerning the same matter. Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394, 400; Mason v. Mason et al., 231 S.W. 971.

Sam B. Sebree, Lancie L. Watts and Chas. C. Shafer, Jr., for respondent.

Defendants have no right to collaterally attack the appointment of relator as executor of his mother's estate, or the jurisdiction of the probate court. State ex rel. Callahan v. Hess, 348, Mo. 388, 153 S.W. 2d 713; Jones v. Bradley, 176 S.W. 2d 72; 21 American Jurisprudence, page 444; Kerr v. Prudential Life Ins. Co., 194 S.W. 2d 706. The executor is the proper party to maintain this action. Sec. 98, R. S. Mo., 1939; Sec. 99, R. S. Mo., 1939; State v. Globe Indemnity Co., 29 S.W. 2d 743; State ex rel. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 61 S.W. 2d 733. Plaintiff's instructions 1 and 2 were properly given. Pearson v. Kansas City, 78 S.W. 2d 81; Stevens v. Westport Laundry Co., 25 S.W. 2d 491, 497; Dohring v. Kansas City, 81 S.W. 2d 943; Counts v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis, 149 S.W. 2d 418; Pogue v. Rosegrant, 98 S.W. 2d 528; Greer v. St. Louis Public Service Company, 87 S.W. 2d 240; Lewis v. Zagata. 166 S.W. 2d 541; Wheeler v. Breeding, 109 S.W. 2d 1237; Clark v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 318 Mo. 453, 300 S.W. 758; Macklin v. Fogel Const. Co., 326 Mo. 38, 31 S.W. 2d 14; Cunningham v. Doe Run Lead Co., 26 S.W. 2d 957; Guthrie v. Albert Wenzlich Real Estate Co., 54 S.W. 2d 801; Ross v. Pendergast, 182 S.W. 2d 307, 309; Harke v. Hess, 75 S.W. 2d 1001; McCloskey v. Koplar, 46 S.W. 2d 557; Techenbrook v. McLaughlin, 108 S.W. 46; Mowry v. Norman, 204 Mo. 173; Loehr v. Starke, 56 S.W. 2d 772; Pulitzer v. Chapman, 85 S.W. 2d 400; Nelson v. Hammett, 189 S.W. 2d 238; Horn v. Owens, 171 S.W. 2d 585, 592; Hamilton v. Steininger, 168 S.W. 2d 59, 68; Mowry v. Norman, 223 Mo. 463; Patton v. Shelton, 328 Mo. 631. The notary's acts were done in his official capacity, and were the proximate cause of damage to the estate of decedent. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Commonwealth to the Use of Andres, 25 S.W. 2d 51; American Surety Company of New York v. Boden, 52 S.W. 2d 10; State ex rel. Sappington v. American Surety Company of New York, 41 S.W. 2d 966; State ex rel. v. Ogden, 187 Mo.App. 39, 172 S.W. 1172; State ex rel. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 61 S.W. 2d 733; State ex rel. v. Central Surety and Insurance Corp., 112 S.W. 2d 607. The court did not err in admitting the alleged hearsay evidence, or in excluding the notary's offer of testimony concerning his alleged agreement with the decedent. Blair v. Perpetual Ins. Co., 10 Mo. 559, 567; Brite v. Atascosa County, 247 S.W. 878, 881; Kerr v. Prudential Ins. Co., 194 S.W. 2d 706. There was no attempt made by plaintiff to impeach the witness, Wm. O. Parkins. State ex rel. Hospes v. Branch, 52 S.W. 390.

OPINION

Bland, J.

This is an action on a notary's bond executed by the defendant, Hammett, as principal, and the defendant, Standard Accident Insurance Corporation of Michigan, as surety. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of relator in the sum of $ 5000, the penal sum of the bond, and damages were assessed in that amount. Defendants have appealed.

The facts show that relator...