Walton v. Drumtra
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Burgess |
| Citation | Walton v. Drumtra, 152 Mo. 489, 54 S.W. 233 (Mo. 1899) |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1899 |
| Parties | WALTON et ux. v. DRUMTRA et al. |
convey in fee simple, or to incumber it at the request of the wife, provided, always, that, if she died without having disposed of said land by deed or will, the trust was to cease, and the property vest in the husband. The wife received the property, and died, without having disposed of it, survived by her husband. Held, that on the death of the wife the property reverted to the husband.
2. A conveyance by a husband to a trustee and his heirs, to the use of the wife, does not vest absolute title in the beneficiary; the statute of uses (Rev. St. 1889, p. 2036) not applying to such a conveyance.
In banc. Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; James E. Withrow, Judge.
Ejectment by Frederick B. Walton and Sarah O. Walton against Adolpha Drumtra and Sophia A. Yore. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
For opinion in division, see 48 S. W. 924.
Webster & Webster, for appellants. Fred Wisizenus, for respondents.
This is ejectment for the recovery of the possession of one undivided sixth of a lot in the city of St. Louis. Defendants recovered a judgment in the court below, from which plaintiffs appealed.
The plaintiff Sarah O. Walton is the daughter of Patrick Yore, deceased, by his first wife, while the defendant Sophia A. Yore was his second wife. The common source of title is Michael Kelly, who, by deed dated January 12, 1857, and duly recorded, conveyed the lot in question to John E. Yore, as trustee for Barbara Ann, wife of Patrick Yore. The deed is as follows: The purchase money was paid by Patrick Yore. Barbara Ann Yore died intestate on April 21, 1876, without having disposed of said property, leaving as her only heirs at law six children, one of whom (Sarah O. Walton, plaintiff) was then and is now the wife of her co-plaintiff, Frederick B. Walton. Patrick Yore survived his wife, and immediately upon her death took possession of said property, claiming to be the absolute owner in fee. He retained possession of the property until May 22, 1879, when, by a marriage settlement of that date, he conveyed to the defendant Sophia A. Yore, then Sophia A. Papin, an estate therein for life, or during her widowhood, should she survive him. Patrick Yore and Sophia A. Papin were married in the year 1879, shortly after the execution of the marriage contract in consideration for which said Sophia surrendered all marital rights, including dower in her intended husband's property, and he (Patrick Yore) conveyed to her a life interest in the property involved in this litigation and in an adjoining lot. After their marriage, Mrs. Yore at once took possession of said property, and still retains the same. Her co-defendant, Drumtra, is her tenant, in the possession of the property. Patrick Yore died July 14, 1889, leaving a will, whereby he disposed of all his property to his children, making no provision for his wife, Sophia, therein. The inventory of his estate recites that the property in question was conveyed to Sophia A. Yore for life. Plaintiffs contend that the deed from Michael Kelly to John E. Yore, trustee for Barbara Ann Yore, vested in her an equitable fee-simple estate in the property thereby conveyed, while defendants' contention is that upon the death of Mrs. Barbara Ann Yore without executing the power of appointment conferred upon her by the deed by Michael Kelly to John E. Yore, as trustee for her, the fee vested in Patrick Yore by way of executory limitation.
In Rubey v. Barnett, 12 Mo. 3, it was said: That case was cited with approval in Norcum v. D'Oench, 17 Mo. 118; Green v. Sutton, 50 Mo. 186; Reinders v. Koppelmann, 68 Mo. 482; Cook v. Couch, 100 Mo. 29, 13 S. W. 80; Lewis v. Pitman, 101 Mo. 281, 14 S. W. 52; Hazel v. Hagan, 47 Mo. 281; Bryant v. Christian, 58 Mo. 102; Carr v. Dings, Id. 400; Mead v. Gray, 75 Mo. 59; State v. Tolson, 73 Mo. 320; Russell v. Eubanks, 84 Mo. 82; Hardy v. Clarkson, 87 Mo. 179; Cornwell v. Orton, 126 Mo. 355, 27 S. W. 536; and Cornwell v. Wulff (Mo.) 50 S. W. 439. So, in Jackson v. Robins, 16 Johns. 587, it is laid down By the deed in question the legal title to the property was vested in John Yore, as trustee. By it he was given power to receive rents and profits of the land, and pay them over to Barbara Ann Yore; and also power to convey or mortgage the land, at her request in writing; and was, therefore, the trustee of an active trust, in whom the whole estate in law and equity vested, subject only to the execution of the trust (4 Kent, Comm. [12th Ed.] 310) and the provisions of the deed. The rigid rules of construction applied to deeds and wills in former years have in modern times been somewhat modified, so that deeds are now construed so as to carry into effect the intention of the parties thereto, and wills the intention of the persons executing them. Waddell v. Waddell, 99 Mo. 338, 12 S. W. 349. The rule for the construction of deeds announced by 2 Devl. Deeds, § 836, is "that the intention of the parties is to be ascertained by...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Middleton v. Dudding
...with a remainder thereafter to other persons. Burnet v. Burnet, 244 Mo. loc. cit. 499, 148 S. W. 872, et cases cited; Walton v. Drumtra, 152 Mo. loc. cit. 507, 54 S. W. 233; Gibson v. Gibson, 239 Mo. loc. cit. 506, 144 S. W. 770. This for the reason that in such devises the intention to cre......
-
Chapman v. Chapman, 31117.
...Lake, 78 N.H. 332; Sec. 551, R.S. 1919; Page on Wills, sec. 815; Dunlap v. Hart, 274 Mo. 600; Allison v. Hitchcock, 274 S.W. 798; Walton v. Drumtra, 152 Mo. 489. (b) Again, the gift to the trustees for Fannie H. Higbee and Louisa H. Chapman is for their "sole use and exclusive benefit and d......
-
Chapman v. Chapman
...78 N.H. 332; Sec. 551, R. S. 1919; Page on Wills, sec. 815; Dunlap v. Hart, 274 Mo. 600; Allison v. Hitchcock, 274 S.W. 798; Walton v. Drumtra, 152 Mo. 489. (b) the gift to the trustees for Fannie H. Higbee and Louisa H. Chapman is for their "sole use and exclusive benefit and disposal." Th......
-
Long v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
...N. Sale, Judge. Affirmed. R. M. Nichols for appellants. (1) The construction of deeds and wills are governed by the same rule. Walton v. Drumtra, 150 Mo. 489; Yocum Siler, 160 Mo. 281; Armor v. Fry, 226 Mo. 673; Driskill v. Ashby, 259 Mo. 7; Johnson v. Frank, 260 Mo. 442. (2) The apparent f......