State v. Muench

• Decision Date: 09 March 1909
• Citation: 217 Mo. 124,117 S.W. 25
• Parties: STATE ex rel. McMANUS v. MUENCH, Circuit Judge.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

117 S.W. 25

217 Mo. 124

STATE ex rel. McMANUS v. MUENCH, Circuit Judge.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 9, 1909.

1. COURTS (§ 21)—JURISDICTION—HOW ACQUIRED.

In Missouri, jurisdiction of the subject-matter of a concrete case in equity or law is only acquired by a court through pleadings filed, process issued, or appearance entered, and decrees entered within the lines of the issues framed by pleadings.

2. JUDGMENT (§ 1)—DEFINITION.

A judgment is the sentence of the law upon the record; the application of the law to the facts and pleadings.

3. TRUSTS (§ 169)—ADMINISTRATION—COURTS —JURISDICTION.

Where the only issue in a suit by the beneficiary under a trust estate created by a will was the appointment of a new trustee in place

of the original trustee, who had died, and the vesting him with title to the trust property, the power of the court over the subject-matter of the suit was exhausted after appointing a new trustee, providing for his bond, and investing him with title, and the court could not retain jurisdiction to administer the details of the trust.

4. TRUSTS (§ 287)—CREATION BY WILL—ADMINISTRATION UNDER ORDERS OF COURT.

That a will creating a trust estate gave the trustee power, with the approval of a court, to sell the trust property, did not show that testator intended that the trust should be administered through the orders of the court.

5. JUDGMENT (§ 505)—COLLATERAL ATTACK.

Where the chancellor, in rendering a decree by consent, exercised a jurisdiction not within the issues, the part of the decree outside the issues was void, and subject to collateral attack, no appeal being necessary.

6. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT (§ 88)—AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY—SCOPE OF LITIGATION.

Counsel employed merely in the matter of the appointment of a new trustee to administer a trust estate on the death of the original trustee, and of the investing such new trustee with title to the estate, were not authorized to confer jurisdiction on the court to administer the whole trust after the appointment of the new trustee.

Burgess, J., dissenting.

Prohibition by the State, on the relation of Thomas Ward McManus, against Hugo Muench, Judge of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Mo., Division 1. Preliminary rule made absolute.

T. J. Rowe, Thos. J. Rowe, Jr., and Henry Rowe, for relator. Shields & Orthwein, for respondent.

LAMM, J.

This is an original proceeding on the suggestion of relator for the state's writ of prohibition directed to the Hon. Hugo Muench, circuit judge, the suggestion being within section 4448, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2436) (q. v.). Passing a rule that respondent show cause, we let a preliminary writ go. On return coming in, relator moves for judgment on the pleadings, and that the preliminary rule be made absolute. Such is the issue at law up for determination.

The motion confesses the averments of the return. On the other hand, the return practically confesses the averments of fact in the petition. In this condition of things, borrowing from both, we make the following statement of the case:

Camilla S. W. McManus died testate, seised of a great estate in realty in St. Louis, in November, 1905, making her granddaughter, Camilla S. W. Burrows, and her son, Thomas Ward McManus (relator), devisees under her will. To Thomas Ward, one-half of the estate was devised absolutely. One-third of the remainder went to the granddaughter. Camilla, absolutely, we infer. However that be, two-thirds of the remainder was devised to William F. Crow in trust, said trustee to manage it, give bond, and pay the net income over to the granddaughter, Camilla, during her life. If she died before Thomas Ward, then the trust estate became his absolute property. If he died before her, it became absolutely hers.

The will being probated, Crow qualified as trustee and took possession of the trust estate, with the burden of administering it under the will. Among other provisions of the will was this: "I hereby give said trustee, or his successors in this trust, full power with the approval of the St. Louis circuit court, to sell any of the property subject to this trust." In that connection it provides that the trustee is authorized and directed to invest all moneys and the proceeds of all sales of the trust property in ways pointed out.

Mr. Crow died on December 3, 1907, leaving a brother of the half blood, and certain descendants of a brother of the full blood and sisters of the half blood, as his heirs.

The will nominating no successor to the trust, the cestui que trust, Camilla, thereupon brought suit in the circuit court of St. Louis against Thomas Ward McManus as devisee, and said heirs at law of the said trustee. Her petition made averments only pertinent to the following relief and no other: First, the appointment of a trustee in place and stead of William F. Crow, deceased; and, second, to divest out of his said heirs the legal title to the trust estate, cast on them by the death of their ancestor, and to vest the same in the court's appointee.

Camilla pointed out in her petition that the live duties of trustee called for not only fine integrity and business capacity, but personal friendship towards her, as cestui que trust, that she was primarily interested in the selection of a new trustee acceptable to her from such standpoints, and that Mr. Crow was selected by her grandmother for that fiduciary relation because he ideally filled the office of trustee. She suggested Henry F. Hafner as Mr. Crow's successor, he possessing the qualifications alleged by her to be incident and necessary to administering the trust.

Thomas Ward admitted by answer all allegations of the petition material to the appointment of a new trustee and the divesting and vesting of the legal title to the trust estate. He joined issue only on those averments relating to the appointment of Mr. Hafner because of his alleged marked friendship to Camilla, averring that the trustee should stand neutral in that particular and be an impartial person as between him and her.

The adult defendants (heirs of Crow) answered, confessing the allegations of the petition and consenting to the appointment of a successor in trust. A minor defendant (one of Crow's heirs) answered through his guardian ad litem, averring ignorance of the facts, pleading his tender years, asking that strict proof be made, and praying the court to protect his rights.

Such other proceedings were had in that cause that it came to judgment on May 4, 1908. At the trial, evidence was put in, and admissions additional to those in the pleadings were made. Thereupon the court made a finding of facts substantially in accord with the allegations of the petition, and spread its finding of record in its decree. Based on such findings, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Matthew Park, Esq., be appointed trustee as successor to William F. Crow, deceased, that the title to the trust estate vested in him by the will be divested out of his heirs at law and vested into the new trustee, who should thereafter have the rights and powers and be subject to the duties and obligations defined in the grandmother's will. The court fixed the trustee's bond at the penal sum of $10,000, and provided for additional bond in certain contingencies. Adjudging costs, etc., the decree contains the following clause (Note: This clause lies at the root of this controversy): "It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that this cause shall be retained in this court, as to the plaintiff and defendant, Thomas Ward McManus, and as to said trustee, Matthew Park, until the further order of this court in respect to all matters connected with the qualifications of said Matthew Park, as trustee, and his administration of said trust."

In that proceeding, Sim T. Price and R. M. Nichols were attorneys for Thomas Ward McManus; John B. Denvir, Jr., for the heirs of William F. Crow; and James P. Maginn, for the granddaughter, Camilla. It seems a draft of the decree was prepared, and that such draft bears the following earmarks: "O. K. [Signed] Sim T. Price, R. M. Nichols, Attys. for Thomas Ward McManus. O. K. [Signed] John B. Denvir, Jr."

On the 24th of July, 1908, the trustee filed a motion in the aforesaid cause, calling the court's attention to the fact that it had retained jurisdiction "on all matters pertaining to the administration of the trust herein," and showing to the court that the trustee had retained counsel, and, in and about the performance of legal services as such, they had rendered services for which they claimed a certain sum, and an order was prayed to allow and pay. Accompanying this motion was an itemized account of length and particularity, stating the dates on which services were rendered, and their character and extent. Notice was given of the filing of this motion, and on a day later in July, the parties appeared by counsel. The court having indicated that the attorneys' fees should be paid out of the income and not out of the corpus of the trust estate, Thomas Ward McManus withdrew from the hearing, deeming that, on that view, he had no concern in it. Thereupon the court adjudged and decreed that the trustee pay a certain sum to his attorneys out of the income of the trust estate. It seems that the form of this decree was also drafted and bears the following: "O. K. [Signed] R. M. Nichols, Attorney for Thomas Ward McManus."

Neither the last judgment nor the original decree, divesting the title of the trust estate out of the heirs of the deceased trustee and appointing Mr. Park as successor in trust and vesting the title in him, was appealed from.

So matters stood until October, 1908. On the 9th day of that month a notice was served, entitled in the cause aforesaid, and directed to Thomas Ward and Camilla, notifying them and each of them that the trustee would on the 12th day of October, 1908, present a petition in said cause requesting the court to empower him to borrow on the...