Stephens v. Moore
Decision Date | 05 March 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 23285.,23285. |
Citation | 298 Mo. 215,249 S.W. 601 |
Parties | STEPHENS v. MOORE et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Callaway County; Ernest S. Gantt, Judge.
Action by Paul M. Stephens against James E. Moore and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, with directions.
Atwood, Wickersham, Hill, Levis & Chilcott, of Kansas City, and W. C. Maughs, of Fulton, for appellant.
R. D. Rodgers, of Mexico, Mo., Baker & Baker, of Fulton, and McBaine & Clark, of Columbia, for respondents.
This is an action in equity to enforce the revocation of a voluntary trust and compel a reconveyance of the trust property.
Alexander 7, Stephens died in 1904, possessed of a considerable estate. Ho left surviving him a widow, Laura Stephens and three sons, John, Frank, and Paul. Paul, the plaintiff in the present action, was six or seven years of age at the time of his father's death, being the youngest of the three boys. His mother upon due appointment acted as his curator until her marriage to one Newcomer. After that event Newcomer became the curator, and as such had the management and control of his ward's estate until the latter reached his majority.
During all of his childhood Paul's health had been frail, and for that reason he had received but meager schooling. One witness gave it as his opinion that the young man was, and always had been, subnormal in mentality, but his mother and the other members of the family testified to the contrary. At the time of the trial the ailments of his childhood had about disappeared, but, premonitory symptoms of tuberculosis having manifested themselves, he had taken up residence in New Mexico. The change had proven beneficial, and his health was improving.
Paul's brothers, Frank and John, each lost his inheritance by waste or mismanagement soon after it came into his hands. For that reason Mrs. Newcomer became very solicitous as Paul approached his majority, lest he should suffer a like misfortune. She thereupon sought counsel as to means that might be employed to protect her son's estate against his own possible improvidence or lack of capacity. After several conferences with her legal adviser, at all of which Paul was present, it was decided that a conveyance of the property in trust would be the most satisfactory means that could be devised for accomplishing the purposes the mother had in view. Accordingly a deed of trust conveying the boy's property, approximately $30,000 worth of real estate and $10,000 in notes and bonds, was prepared two or three days in advance of his twenty-first birthday, and on the morning of that day, July 20, 1918, the deed was duly signed and acknowledged by him, and the property thereby conveyed was transferred and delivered by his curator directly to the trustee. The material portions of the deed were as follows:
In the following January Paul Stephens, through his attorney, filed suit in the circuit court for Callaway county against the trustee, Moore, to have the deed of trust annulled and set aside. The grounds upon which plaintiff in that suit sought to have the deed set aside were: (1) There was no consideration for the execution of the instrument; (2) plaintiff did not understand the nature and legal effect of the deed, in that he thought he was simply constituting the said James E. Moore his manager and adviser; and (3) the deed was not the free and voluntary act of the Plaintiff, but was obtained by the undue influence of his mother and stepfather. In due time Moore, the defendant in said action, filed answer to the petition. Thereafter, while the suit was thus pending, a conference was had at which were present Paul Stephens, his mother, stepfather, and attorney, and the trustee, Moore, and his attorneys. The conference resulted in an agreement between Stephens and Moore which was reduced to writing, signed by them, and filed in the case. The portions of the stipulation pertinent to the questions here involved are as follows:
Pursuant to the stipulation, the circuit court for Callaway county entered judgment, which, so far as material here, was as follows:
"The court having seen and heard read the agreement aforesaid, and having heard evidence on the condition of the estate of said Paul M. Stephens in the hands and control of said James E. Moore, trustee, and being satisfied that it is for the best interests of the estate and the aforesaid Paul M. Stephens, the plaintiff herein, to have the litigation involved in this suit settled upon the terms and conditions contained in said agreement, it is therefore ordered by the court that said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Humphreys v. Welling, 34954.
...his services, and the payment of the remainder to Fred. Mentioning these duties of the trustee, appellants rely upon Stephens v. Moore, 298 Mo. 215, 228(2), 249 S.W. 601, 604(4), and say testatrix merely vested Charlie with the powers of an agent for Fred. The Stephens case involved a conve......
-
Morsman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...to the grantor's heirs gives the heirs no interest. Doctor v. Hughes, supra; Burton v. Boren, 308 Ill. 440, 139 N.E. 868; Stephens v. Moore, 298 Mo. 215, 249 S.W. 601. The rights, obviously, are no greater where the grantor holds for himself for life with the provision that it is to go to h......
-
Kingston v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 37122.
...v. Dalby, 98 Mo. App. 189, 71 S.W. 1078; Saunders v. Vautier, 4 Beav. 115; Jones v. Jones, 223 Mo. 424, 123 S.W. 29; Stephens v. Moore, 298 Mo. 215, 249 S.W. 601. (9) An active trust is a subsisting continuing trust where something has not yet been accomplished which was the original purpos......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Clarke, 38448.
...the trust for the use and benefit of Hazlett and for the support and maintenance of his family, if he should have one. Stephens v. Moore, 298 Mo. 215, 249 S.W. 601. (11) Upon Hazlett's death, the trust for his use and benefit, and his trustees' legal estate, in his equal fourth part of the ......