Yates v. Richmond Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 05 April 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13544.,13544.
• Citation: 220 S.W. 692
• Parties: YATES, Public Adm'r, v. RICHMOND TRUST CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

220 S.W. 692

YATES, Public Adm'r, v. RICHMOND TRUST CO. et al.

No. 13544.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 5, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ray County; Ralph Hughes, Judge.

Action by William F. Yates, Public Administrator of Ray County, in charge of the estate of John P. Hewlett, deceased, against the Richmond Trust Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Garner, Clark, Milligan & Garner, of Richmond, for appellants.

George W. Crowley, of Richmond, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

This is a suit to replevin a certificate of 100 shares of stock of the Richmond Trust Company. The facts show that John P. Hewlett and Alice D. Hewlett were husband and wife, and that the latter died n March 15, 1918, and the former on March 21, 1918. They were both residents of Ray county, Mo., and died intestate, without children or other direct descendants. Plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of John P. Hewlett, deceased, and defendant William H. Darneal is the administrator of the estate of Alice D. Hewlett, deceased. The facts show that William H. Darneal and Alice D. Hewlett were brother and sister, and owners as tenants in common of certain land in Ray county, Mo.; that on September 14, 1916, Alice D. Hewlett and her husband conveyed to said Darneal her undivided interest in the land, and in consideration therefor said Darneal assigned in writing his certificates of stock for 100 shares of the capital stock of the Richmond Trust Company to "Alice D. and John P. Hewlett jointly." On September 14, 1916, Alice D. and John P. Hewlett caused said certificates of stock to be canceled and surrendered and a new certificate to be issued to "Alice D. and John P. Hewlett jointly."

The evidence shows that when the new stock was issued the Hewletts transacted the matter with the secretary of the trust company. The latter testified that there was no particular conversation at the time, but that—

"They just brought in the two certificates of stock and requested that they be rewritten; * * * that they be issued in the name of `Alice D. and John P. Hewlett jointly.'"

He testified:

"They were both present. My recollection is he had the certificates and made the request; but they were both together. They both talked about it. I couldn't say positively whether she made the request, or whether he, did. * * * I rewrote the certificates in one certificate. * * * I asked them the second time if they wanted the certificate jointly. * * * `Do I understand it correctly?' and they both— I asked both of them, and they said, `Yes; that was the way they wanted it.'"

He stated that he then issued the new certificate. On cross-examination he was asked:

"Q. It was just agreeable to them to have it, and they dictated how that certificate should go? A. It was their own suggestion, and I only asked them the second time, to be sure that I understood it."

At the death of the Hewletts the certificate was found in their safety deposit box in the trust company. As to who rented the box the treasurer testified:

"I don't know. I think it was rented in the name of both. Mrs. Hewlett transacted most of the business."

The dividends were credited to Mrs. Hewlett's personal account.

Plaintiff brought suit against the bank on the theory that the stock was held by the Hewletts by an estate by the entirety, and that upon the death of the wife the stock became the property of her husband. The bank answered that the administrator of the wife's estate was claiming the stock, and that it had no interest in the controversy, and asked that plaintiff and the administrator of the wife's estate be required to interplead, which was ordered, and defendant administrator filed his answer, setting up his claim to the stock. The case was tried before the court without the aid of a jury, and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant administrator has appealed.

It is defendant's contention that the wife's separate estate furnished the consideration for the stock, and, as the stock was taken in the name of both without her written consent, by virtue of section 8309, R. S. 1909, the husband obtained no interest in the Stock, and at the wife's death the same descended to her administrator. The rule is that if the husband, with or without the wife's knowledge and consent, invests her money in realty or...