Young v. Pressgrove

Citation195 S.W.2d 516,355 Mo. 204
Decision Date10 June 1946
Docket Number39625
PartiesStephen Young and Fred W. Schlottmann, Trustees for Harry H. Grove, and Stephen Young and Fred W. Schlottmann, Individually, Appellants, v. Albert W. Pressgrove and Myrtle Mae Pressgrove, His Wife
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Rehearing Denied July 8, 1946.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. William L Mason, Judge.

Affirmed.

J. L London for Stephen Young and Fred W. Schlottmann, Rassieur, Kammerer & Rassieur for Jessie A. Mant, Administratrix of Mary Parker, Deceased, and Walther, Hecker & Walther for Fred W. Schlottmann.

(1) The court had no authority or jurisdiction to permit defendants Pressgrove to file a cross bill to cancel and set aside the trust indenture. Such a cross bill engrafted a new cause of action upon the cause of action sued on by the trustees and was a separate and distinct cause of action not germane to the issues raised by the cause of action set forth in the petition of the plaintiff trustees. Davis v. Austin, 156 S.W.2d 903, 348 Mo. 1094; Monticello Bldg. Corp. v. Monticello Inv. Co., 52 S.W.2d 545, 330 Mo. 1128. (2) H. H. Grove was not an intervenor. Cases cited supra. (3) Under the said Missouri law even an intervenor could not set up a separate controversy; it had to be done by an original bill. Davis v. Austin, supra; Monticello Bldg. Corp. v. Monticello Inv. Co., supra. (4) An action could not be maintained jointly against defendants unless there was joint liability. 1 Houts, p. 20; Salisbury v. Salisbury, 274 Mo. 180, 202 S.W. 529; Addison v. Dent County, etc., Bank, 205 Mo.App. 622, 226 S.W. 322. (5) The defendants Albert W. and Myrtle Mae Pressgrove could not bring an original proceeding to attack the trust instrument, therefore they could not do so by way of a cross bill. McPherson v. Meek, 30 Mo. 345; Davis v. Austin, supra. (6) Sec. 972, R.S. 1939, authorizing bringing in new parties only authorized the court to order then to be brought in by an amendment of the petition, or by a supplemental petition and a new summons. Repealed Laws 1943, p. 353, effective Jan. 1, 1945. (7) If this court should find that the court below had jurisdiction to entertain the cross bills and appoint a guardian ad litem, then the guardian ad litem, as an officer of the court, would have the usual authority to stipulate by and with the consent of the court, especially since the court ordered the plaintiffs to deposit the property in court in accordance with the stipulation, in which plaintiffs challenged the court's jurisdiction. Nagel v. Schilling, 14 Mo.App. 576; Ryan v. Philadelphia, etc., Co., 189 F. 253. (8) The term of court had passed and Judge Mason had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of Judge Williams. Therefore the court erred in setting aside the order of Judge Williams and the stipulation. State ex rel. Lentz v. Fort, 178 Mo. 518; Buchholz v. Manzella, 158 S.W.2d 200; Jende v. Simms, 166 S.W. 1048; State v. Randazzo, 300 S.W. 755. (9) Grove, being the sole beneficiary of the trust, had a right to and did revoke the trust on September 9, 1943, and the court erred in thereafter cancelling same. Stephens v. Moore, 249 S.W. 601. (10) The allowance of fees and expenses to Tyree C. Derrick was improper because: His services were in behalf of the defendants Pressgrove, whose interests were adverse to those of Grove and his estate. The right of a lawyer to recover fees either in law or in equity is dependent upon the right of his client to such fees. If the client is not entitled to recover such fees, no allowance can be made directly to the attorney. Thatcher v. St. Louis, 343 Mo. 597, 122 S.W.2d 915; Schmidt v. Ore Mining Co., 28 Ore. 9, 40 P. 406; 6 C.J.S., pp. 1096, 1097; Wallace v. Fiske, 80 F.2d 897; Women's Christian Assn. v. Kansas City, 147 Mo. 103. (11) The allowance of fees to Lloyd E. Boas, was improper. The court never authorized him to act as attorney, nor was any order appointing him as attorney ever entered. (12) He had no authority to appoint himself attorney for himself as guardian ad litem. (13) In Missouri a guardian ad litem cannot appoint himself as attorney. Gamble v. Gibson, 59 Mo. 585.

Karl E. Holderle, Jr., for Tyree C. Derrick, Administrator of the Estate of Harry H. Grove, Deceased, and Tyree C. Derrick for Albert W. Pressgrove and Myrtle Pressgrove, His Wife, et al.

(1) Equity has original jurisdiction of suits involving the determination of the validity of trusts and suits to quiet title. Richards v. N.W. Coal & Mining Co., 221 Mo. 149, 119 S.W. 953. (2) Plaintiffs-appellants must prevail on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of defendants-respondents' title. Cullen v. Johnson, 325 Mo. 253, 29 S.W.2d 39; Wheeler v. Reynolds Land Co., 193 Mo. 279, 91 S.W. 1050. (3) The Pressgroves could have brought an action originally to quiet title to the property in themselves. Sec. 1684, R.S. 1939; Richards v. N.W. Coal & Mining Co., 221 Mo. 149, 119 S.W. 953; Meyer v. Wise, 133 S.W.2d 321; Canty v. Halpin, 294 Mo. 96, 242 S.W. 94. (4) An answer and cross bill can be set up in a quiet title to attack the trust instrument because the plaintiffs-appellants claimed the trust as their source of title. White v. Kentling, 345 Mo. 526, 134 S.W.2d 39; Clark v. Heckerman, 346 Mo. 458, 142 S.W.2d 35; Lortz v. Rose, 346 Mo. 1212, 145 S.W.2d 385. (5) Once a court of equity acquires jurisdiction it will grant complete relief. The court will not declare the trust void as to one piece of property and good as to the balance. Merz v. Tower Grove Bank & Trust Co., 344 Mo. 1150, 130 S.W.2d 611; Rains v. Moulder, 338 Mo. 275, 90 S.W.2d 81; White v. Hughes, 88 S.W.2d 268. (6) All parties interested in the cause of action should be before the court. Davis v. Austin, 348 Mo. 1094, 156 S.W.2d 903. (7) Under a general prayer for relief, an equity court can grant complete relief within the scope of the pleadings and the evidence. Rains v. Moulder, 338 Mo. 275, 90 S.W.2d 81; Merz v. Tower Grove Bank & Trust Co., 344 Mo. 1150, 130 S.W.2d 611; Eckhardt v. Bock, 159 S.W.2d 395; Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289. (8) A guardian can not waive any rights of his ward. Campbell v. Campbell, 350 Mo. 169, 165 S.W.2d 851; Kennard v. Wiggins, 349 Mo. 283, 160 S.W.2d 706. (9) If the court had jurisdiction and the decree is sustained the act of the trial court in setting its order aside is no concern of the appellants. (10) The decree is for the right party; the error, if any, is harmless and will not cause a reversal. Summers v. People's Elevator Co., 136 S.W.2d 81; Chambers v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 235 Mo.App. 884, 138 S.W.2d 29. (11) The trust was void ab initio by reason of Grove's mental incapacity to have executed it. There was nothing to revoke. (12) Courts of Equity have authority to render money judgments. Hadley Bros. Uhl Co. v. Scott, 93 S.W.2d 276; Grinnell Co. v. Farm Home Savings & Loan Co., 75 S.W.2d 409. (13) He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. Leeper v. Kurth, 349 Mo. 938, 163 S.W.2d 1031; Stierlin v. Teschmacher, 338 Mo. 1208, 64 S.W.2d 647.

Lloyd E. Boas per se.

(1) The court has jurisdiction and the decree conforms to the pleadings and facts. Lortz v. Rose, 145 S.W.2d 385; Merz v. Tower Grove Bank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611. (2) Harry H. Grove was properly made a party. State ex rel. Cly v. Bandall, 299 S.W. 155; Sampson v. Mitchell, 28 S.W. 770, 125 Mo. 217; Fadler v. Gabbert, 63 S.W.2d 121, 333 Mo. 851; Riggs v. Moise, 128 S.W.2d 632, 344 Mo. 177. (3) Respondent was properly appointed as guardian ad litem. Graves v. Graves, 164 S.W. 496, 265 Mo. 468. (4) The court properly set aside the guardian ad litem's stipulation. Campbell v. Campbell, 165 S.W.2d 851, 350 Mo. 169. (5) Compensation allowances properly allowed by court. Walton v. Yore, 58 Mo.App. 562; Thatcher v. St. Louis, 343 Mo. 597; Kingston v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 158 S.W.2d 339, 348 Mo. 448; Franz v. Buder, 38 F.2d 605.

Landry Harwood and Meredith & Harwood pro se and for Tyree C. Derrick.

A court of equity has the authority to order attorneys' fees paid direct to them, out of a fund, where their services have created, preserved or protected a fund to a share in which others are entitled. White v. The University Land Co., 49 Mo.App. 450; In re Thomasson's Estate, 171 S.W.2d 553; Wallace v. Fiske, 80 F.2d 897; O'Hara v. Oakland County, 136 F.2d 152; United States v. Anglin & Stevenson, 145 F.2d 622; Thomas v. Peyser, 118 F.2d 369; Hempstead Trustees v. Theological School, 286 Penn. 493, 134 A. 103; Johnson v. United Rys. Co., 247 Mo. 326; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527.

OPINION

Gantt, J.

Action to quiet title to real estate located at 5167 Raymond Ave., St. Louis, Mo. The petition alleged that plaintiffs had title to said real estate under a trust indenture executed by Harry H. Grove, conveying all his property to them as trustees. The answer alleged that defendants had title to said real estate by conveyance and as a gift from Grove. It also alleged that Grove was of unsound mind at the time he signed the trust indenture. Judgment for Grove, who was made a party to the litigation, and against both plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs appealed. Jessie Mant, an heir of Grove, also appealed but complains only of allowances to attorneys. She does not question the judgment on the merits.

Defendants also filed a cross bill alleging that Grove, at the time of the execution of the trust indenture, was a seventy-six year old bachelor of unsound mind; that the trust indenture was prepared without the knowledge or consent of Grove, and that he was induced to sign the same by the fraud, and undue influence of others. The cross bill further alleged that Grove had been declared by the probate c...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Webster v. Sterling Finance Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 10, 1946
    ...... interest, and to enact a new section in lieu thereof relating. to the same subject, was obviously a sufficient title to that. act. Young v. Greene County, 342 Mo. 1105, 119. S.W.2d 369. (6) Under the circumstances, the title to the. original Act of 1891 is to be looked to in ......
  • State ex rel. Simons v. Wilcox
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • November 7, 1949
    ...Bldg. Corp. v. Monticello Inv. Co., 330 Mo. 1128, 52 S.W.2d 545; Davis v. Austin, 348 Mo. 1094, 156 S.W.2d 903; Young v. Pressgrove, 355 Mo. 204, 195 S.W.2d 516, and State ex rel, Duggan v. Kirkwood, Mo.Sup., S.W.2d 257, 2 A.L.R.2d 216. After a careful examination of the record in the insta......
  • Central Hardware Co. v. Abney's Towing Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 1, 1989
    ...with defendant in resisting the claims of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to both of them." ' " Young v. Pressgrove, 355 Mo. 204, 195 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Div. 1 1946) (quoting Davis v. Austin, 348 Mo. 1094, 156 S.W.2d 903, 906 (Div. 2 1941) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY Central f......
  • Hastings v. Van Black, WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 21, 1992
    ...inject himself into a pending action to assert his rights against the claims therein being made by an original litigant. Young v. Pressgrove, 355 Mo. 204, 195 S.W.2d 516. Intervention is thus ancillary to and contemporaneous with adjudication of the original action. In the oft-cited case of......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT