*1 TERM, 1918. v. Fisher. instruction Because of the error in plaintiff’s forth sets incorrectly the measure which of damages, the law reference evident thereto, with in excess plaintiff recover anything entitled statute, namely, $2000. provided hy penalty sum of respondent remitting Therefore, upon affirmed; other- judgment ten $4750, within days, remanded, the cause judgment wise the is reversed and if so petition leave to to amend with Allen, concur. J., J., advised. P. .Reynolds, FAN- Guardian, FISHER, by PEARL LUCILLE CLYDE FISHER SCAMMEL, Appellant, NIE Respondents. ET AL., 5, Argued Appeals. December and Submitted Court of Louis St. Opinion 6, January Filed 1920.

(cid:127) Policy Dry Trust Created Passive 1.' TRUSTS: Trusts: provision policy Dry insurance which Trust. The or rider to an prede- provides payment for. the in the event insured’s wife monthly ceasing him, in- certain brother of daughter etc., sured, insured, that the trustee for the held hy or, rider, policy accurately, is a trust created more its dry uncoupled passive, duty trust, interest or in the respect beyond trustee with collection from the its company payment looking right, that the trustee has no the terms the trust daughter or, itself, being to withhold same appointed duly guardian. minor, her Personalty.

2. -: Statute Uses: Does Not Affect The Statute commonly (section Uses, as it is called Statutes of 1909), Revised personalty. affect does not Incompe- Testimony Dead of Trustee 3. WITNESSES: Trusts: Trustor daughter, tent. In an named bene- action her father as payments ficiary, installment due insur- of certain under a life against father, hy ance father named daughter, payments thereunder receive for the benefit of the provisions etc., of section Statutes held Revised competent prove it was not for the trustee to the character 203 MISSOURI APPEAL Fisher v. Fisher. of his trust and his duties under the trust conversations be- trustor,

tween and the himself the creator no one *2 appearing present. else to have heard it or to have been Benficiary’s 4. TRUSTS: Unfrindly Removal of Trustee: Guardian Not Trustee Cause For Removal. The fact that the relations be- guardian tween amicable, of a minor and a trustee are not held, that of itself not sufficient cause for removal the trustee. Appeal City from the Circuit Court Louis. St. Hennings, Judge.

—Hon. Thos. G. (with directions). Reversed and remanded appellant. J ourdan, Rassieur & Pierce for (1) (a) property person When vested in one merely in for simple dry is a another, and the beneficiary possession entitled actual enjoyment property equity and a court will enforce such Perry (6 Ed.), decree. 2 on Trusts p. Trusts, Perry 847; 2 on sec. 521; Law Lewin’s (12 chap. on Streeten), Ed. Dale & p. Trusts 16; 2, v. Atkins, Atkins 70 Yt. 41 Atl. 503; Guild v. Allen, 28 R. I. Atl. 855; 430, 67 Matter of Denfield, 156 30 N. E. 1018; Hill Mass. Hamlin v. Hill, 132 N. 738; W. Ringrose v. 88 Me. Mansfield, 788; 33 Atl. -(b) v. Gleadall, 121 Pac. 407. The above rule has recognized been in Missouri. Cornwell v. 148 Wulff, Hayden, (c) Mo. 542; Webb v. 166 Mo. 39. The above applicable though beneficiary rule even be a minor person incapable managing other its affairs. (2) Perry (a) person Trusts, 521. sec A who bears beneficiary ill-will or hatred or those with towards beneficiary whom the must reside and allows feeling hostile or ill-will to control actions trustee his person improper for such a to act as equity trustee and alone will remove reason him from such Gartside Gartside, office. 113 Mo. (b) person 348. an unfit Defendant, TERM, y. act (1) because: here, his He allows feelings hostile plaintiff’s guardian towards control disposition handling plaintiff’s funds; and. (2) impertinent He arrogantly and without justification plaintiff’s give has refused to concerning full and fair information the trust funds, disposition; (3) their source and completely He has plaintiff concern himself in failed the welfare of expenditure and allow the question, of funds in necessary (4) maintainance and medical attention. De- fendant, should at least have been compelled give prop- a bond. He has no available erty out of which the could collect what is provide due her. The does not that he shall security. (5) have and retain the funds without Defend- *3 absolutely Maude ant, S. Fisher, no interest payments policy made to date. She nothing claimed an interest therein but there was justify equity plain- it. A court of in the interest of ward, an have at removed tiff, its should least infant, title. cloud settled respond- Henry Balter and E. T. é B. A. G. Allen ent.

(1) The Statute not of Missouri does Uses personal property. 1909; affect Sec. R. Slevin Cyc. (2) The of 185; v. 32 Mo. 206. Brown, 39 Statute not the transfer of real Missouri affect Uses does special function, no trustee, a estate father ato daughter, until the child of his minor the benefit majority. Ottomeyer 178 Pritchett, v. reaches her objection (3) trust because There no a Mo. 166. partially a written instrument created it Ray, partially v. 173 declarations. Kendrick oral Lovegood N. Y. 460, 44 19 Mise. 305; Assn., Mass. v. proved alleged Supp. (4) The 563. personal property of trust in defendant active objection- sustaining of a minor . use for the 48 203 APPEAL MISSOURI y. to oral of the trustee in reference thereto, declarations passive does not it into convert because some policy. are disclosed terms Pitts v. Weakley, statutory (5) 155 Mo. 143. A curator of does not the minor become successor trustee proceeds policy. of the insurance The statute does policy. not make her a neither does the would nothing therefore'avail have the re- Hayden, 48; moved trustee. v. 166 McKee Webb Mo. Allen, Mo. May Statement. —Of date the Prudential policy of America issued its whereby, by the life of Nathan Walter Fisher, “rider,” promised, upon having compli- the death Fisher, pay with the and conditions of the ed wife, Pearl immedi- Anna sum his $30 upon receipt proof ately there- death, $30 monthly day after on the first month until each made, have shall been thereafter on the installments beneficiary day long each as the month first being provided: shall live, pre-

“If the Anna Pearl shall the insured or survive but insured, decease shall forty monthly die two hundred and before first the. according payable the terms installments paid, the said hundred have been two shall monthly of them remain forty *4 Clyde unpaid paid, to due, shall be each as becomes Pearl the Fisher, insured, brother of S. daughter the if Pearl of said insured, Fisher, Lucille living such install- the date of be on due Fisher Lucille S., Fisher, mother of the Maude to ment, otherwise living the Fisher due Maude S. if said insured, installment. of date such in specially the event of understood

“It beneficiary, Fisher, Anna Pearl the the the death of the'policy shall continue payable under not installments paid.” have been monthly shall installments after TERM, v. Fisher. Fisher Clyde Claiming that had Fisher, S. monthly fell due after which collected original insured and death of the paid part any tfie it over to had never of wife, and any guardian, one Pearl to her Lucille Fisher, through plaintiff, Pearl Fisher, minor, Lucille her, guardian, her action Scammell, her Fannie commenced against city in St. Louis, the circuit court of Clyde Prudential S. Fisher, Maude Fisher S. the latter hereafter America, Insurance Company. her amended referred the Insurance In to as petition case avers trial, which the went she predeceased Fisher, wife, Anna Pearl long enough at him or, husband did survive least, acquire any policy, interest due under practically dying same and her husband further avers that Maude time. She S. institution of at the time insured, mother of living, grandmother of that the action still appointed plaintiff, duly Scammell, Fannie had been person qualified and estate plaintiff Court the Probate Pearl Lucille Fisher City further averred Louis. St. proof April, made , Insurance Com- to the of Nathan Walter death pany demanded Lucille trustee of Pearl and, as policy; payment due under the him the amount that, Company paid then the installments the Insurance above due, thereafter, circumstances day each succeed- Fisher,-on the first stated, May. beginning day ing month, first monthy Company form the collected amounting due under installments of $30 in the that he $1440, intends in all the sum of they remaining installments future to collect possession control of due; become refuses and still refused trustee, and fund, and will continue the same over to to nav future. he collectes withhold sums 2(13 M A. —4 *5 203 MISSOURI APPEAL REPORTS,

Fisher v. Fisher. It Clyde further that acting is avverred is as S. Fisher such give trustee without bond, refuses to nas bond, every plaintiff compel resisted give effort' of him n management bond for the honest and faithful and control of although, the fund, as it he averred, is insolvent property plaintiff little so owns that would be unable law to recover of him amount Clyde due duty her; that the sole S. plaintiff’s guardian collect and turn over to "by amount him, collected that, but violation of his duty, wrongfully he plaintiff withholds the from it to his averring converts own use. Further that plaintiff, sorely Pearl Lucille Fisher, minor and ais in need of funds for her care and maintenance, and Clyde that the trustee, S. witholds the funds proceeds entirely she is her, so dependent upon charity and beneficence of friends Clyde it is averred relatives, Fisher denies S. right plaintiff although, to the fund, it plaintiff collecting he averred, for it and would acts belonged not be receive it to her. entitled to unless finally Clyde averred and his S. Fisher against family feeling harbor ill and ill-will plaintiff caring persons and the are who now rearing her, to extent entire conduct in such handling controlled intense actuated and impossible feeling, making hatred ill venom, Clyde through plaintiff, guardian, to deal with rights plaintiff, concerning S. Fisher in matters things and that for and on account of matters improper stated S. an unfit and above, Fisher person to act and has violated the duties accounting prays that an his office. court Plaintiff against and settlement Clyde had with and defendants Company; the Insurance Fisher and judgment against Fisher, trustee, have together with interest him, for the amount collected plaintiff, due the same became from the date when trustee and that defend- and that removed he he TERM, 1918. *6 Fisher v. Fisher. adjudged present

ant, Maude Fisher be to have in- no S. in terest the or in of the installments due and paid policy, under the and for such further and other proper, premises relief may from as the meet and together with costs.

By petition, amended answer defendant this Clyde plaintiff minority S. the Fisher of and admits guardian; that Fannie Scammell that he the paternal plaintiff peti- uncle of the as in and alleged; tion paternal grandmother that defendant Maude S. the Fisher is contingent

of has a and alleged; policy interest the insurance the as duly incorporated peti- Company Insurance in the as alleged; plaintiff’s tion father, Nathan Walter on Fisher, Pearl died Fisher, and Anna both mother, April May 2, that on 1912; 10, 1909, Insurance Com- pany life on the Nathan Walter Fisher insured the of alleged petition agreed to make policy payments attaching the rider to as averred, of Lucille Fisher, which set out the interest Pearl Clyde April, S. Fisher that in defendant averred; proof de- of Fisher, made of the death Nathan Walter policy, manding payment under the the amount due of Company since trustee, install- paid Clyde said him, S. policy he, and that ¿ ments under due they remainding be- installments to collect intends policy. amount denies that the He under the come due a that because but avers month collected was $30 beneficiary, age Pearl Anna discrepancy given the Insurance Fisher, between that given after policy out taken was when com- the defendant death paid had not pany Walter that Nathan found policy $5.22, by the sum premiums on the sufficient payable under' first $60 from which deducted Fisher, col- Clyde S. he, thereafter proof death, Company, upon the Insurance lected $54.78, May on the first two MISSOURI APPEAL Fislier v. Fislier.

instead of and thereafter $60, each month, first beginning ending with June 1, 1912, and with iVlarcn 1, or a total of 1916,$29.46, $1409.94, cturerence between being a month $30 a month, $29.46 occasioned the mistake referred to that the last installments above; April due $29.46 on 1, 1916, filing not, at the time of done which was answer, April paid 17, 1916, been to him the Insurance Company by reason of the pendency institution answering, suit. Further possession that he admits control *7 trustee, fund collected stated, as above and as up paid that he this over has to not, time, of the plaintiff’s guardian fund to that he has denies but policy making determined on a fixed future no payments guardian. whatsoever out of the to the fund acting He he that bond, trustee, .admits is as without proceedings up by plaintiff, requiring and instituted sets give bond; him vexatious; to that suit avers that was appeared in he an that to and had answer had it filed hearing; plaintiff’s court for that a the instance on attorney passed, hearing attorney that inform- was expected petition ing he defendant that to dismiss answering, but not done Further so date. de- had says good no fendant S. Fisher there that is reason required give existing why as he be should bond brother, insured, that finan- trustee; knew of his his appointed cial condition when he him trustee. He de- good insolvent that he has and nies that he is avers company responsible position manufacturing and awith salary over and owns, of St. that besides he Louis; his personal property goods, sum household above dollars, four also and value of three or thousand and piece city of of real estate in the in a an interest owns St. to-day than in better financial condition and Louis is appointed denies further trustee. He he' as was when duty policy and to collect under that sole his guardian collected; wrong- plaintiff’s the amounts over turn violating he that duties; he that his denies TERM,

Fisher v. Fisher. fully withholding plaintiff, or that he use, own and that an un- converts denies his improper person fit and to act as ishe that violating the of his office. He further avers, duties alleges, tor a defense action and to the that he right, Ms under exércise expenditure discretion in the best fund for ward; interest of the that he her uncle and much if not in her welfare lhan her interest, more, bas guardian, highest Fánnie that con- Scammell; his management of the trust fund to see that cern in kept against expenses Ms are down large possible may ward amount receive over guardian be turned when shall appointed that he future; had been April on the Probate Court ward 1912; petition April Scammell on of Fannie appointed in Ms appointment she- revoked holding place 1912, the court on une 25, J right legal grandmother a better applica- making person; that in unfit anwas appointment Scammell Mrs. tion for daughter held under oath, son testified, supported expectation the ward out would *8 funds, of the of Fannie out maintained and educated daughter and that Mrs. or son of her Scammell or appointed guardian, not use the would Scammell, if purpose; nevertheless property that that ward guardian appointment Mrs. Scammell since her as education, a month for of allowance obtained an $15 dating that support ward, back maintenance and first appointment; that beginning her to the by the Probate Court in filed Mrs. Scammell settlement guardian the sum $800 had received that the shows entirely belonging that that sum is her ward and expenses guardian by to the and exhausted allowances object purpose of and administration, that the and proceeding and bringing the herein Scammell Fannie get trying get as to defendant removed MISSOURI APPEAL Fisher v. Fisher. appointed, get

herself possession may trustee in order that she expend control

and and expended same in allowance to as she herself estate of her ward that heretofore; defendant he, given if custody the care and of the ward, promises offers support and that he will educate, and charge up maintain her without save her will entire interest in the trust estate for her use and benefit in the may future when have no one take care her; willing a married man a home good and able to take care of He ward. denies against ill feeling or ill-will family, or her Fannie but avers Mrs. Seammell and family feeling hostility harbor ill and bitterness and although himself toward and his mother in this: Mrs. Seammell himby had been furnished com- plete accounting May on 20, 1913, of the received funds by him trustee under the she had brought proceeding vexatious the Probate Court charging him with concealment of assets, latter, which hearing, by on the Probate dismissed Court, family, by slights that Mrs. Seammell and in- sulting prevented conduct had defendant and his mother seeing calling peti- her ward; on tion to hearing Probate Court and of evidence, granted prayer Probate Court defendant’s separate custody brought of the ward and had give action and also have him bond. that to Further an- swering a defense, S. Fisher files an item- receipts account or statement of the ized him as only showing a total of and that the $1409.94, expenditures paid on the account him out attorney’s paid him, sum fee $25 caused against proceeding Mrs. Seammell him for the dis- covery assets. answer, filed

admitting proof of the death *9 by Clyde been "Walter Fisher filed with Nathan S. filing proof Clyde Fisher; of the death TERM,

Fisher v. Fisher. payment the amount S. demanded of defendant Fisher lie policy, plaintiff; due under trustee for as company from the defendant collected proof and insured, $30 death sum $30, beginning day succeeding-month, on the first each knowledge day May, all first denies with- the 1912; petition' interest to the other averments as and controversy in the interest that it is without and avers the de- plaintiff hand existing on the and one between Clyde Fisher on Maude S. fendant S. and other. averring she answer,

Maude S. Fisher filed grandmother contin- paternal and the gent policy, claims and beneficiary in the named payable under the in the fund due some interest policy, contingent Lucille of Pearl on the death petition. allegations in other but all denies up in reply new matter set to the There filed was a of defendant answer dismissed bill a trial before the court At was excepting trial filing plaintiff, a motion new appealed. duly being overruled, to that OPINION. above) (after stating P. as

REYNOLDS, J. facts proceedings at have over the read record of —We generally may the trial cause said tending there sustain material evidence was parties, pleaded respective is, facts as beneficiaries issuance its the defend- thereunder, collection they respectively be- ant the institution due, that he had came hands by him. The amount admitted suit at least the of this testimony conflicting to the between relations family Mrs. Scammell and and his.

56 203 MISSOURI APPEAL Fisher.

Fisher upon construc- the it the turns case, In onr view of provision the to rider tion or of necessary, provides: repeat as far which, to monthly forty install- and hundred two “The said paid, unpaid be shall remain of them or ments such of brother Fisher, to due, it S. each becomes daughter Fisher, Lucille Pearl trustee for the insured, living Lucille be Pearl insured, of the if said Maude to installments, otherwise on the due date of such Maude S. if said insured, mother of the installment.” living of on the date such due monthly install- payments to limited are ments. daughter insured, Lucille

Pearl being all installments on the due date alive the insured the death of due far fallen after have so undoubtedly beneficiary, first wife, named through those entitled receive became to her trustee, Fisher. question beyond trust that the

We that it think is accurately, a rider, more is created or, its dry passive, uncoupled duty with interest or respect beyond in the trustee its payment collection from the Insurance right, looking that he no has trust itself, to withhold same from being appointed or, duly guard- a minor, ian. simple dry

That this a or clear, trust a refer- accepted ence authorities Thus, conclusive shows. Perry (6 in 2 on Trusts and Trustees Howes’ Re- Ed., vision), sec. said: simple dry

“It is property trust, when vested person in one another, trust for nature of prescribed being the trust, the donor, left que construction of laAv. In case the cestui trust is possession enjoyment entitled the actual property, dispose it, or to call conveyances legal trustee to execute such of estate TERM, 1918. Fisher v. ab- que trust lie In the .cestui short, directs. together with interest,

solute control over beneficial title, person right legal for the call legal dry simple trustee .” title is a vests whom (section 521): the same author further said dry simple nature, “In a estate, power disposing managing or no *11 although que infant, married the cestui trust an even is manage- person incapable of the other or lunatic, woman, the nature Nor ment control. alter can personal, changing property, by or vice real estate into . versa.” (First American, Lewin In 1 on Trustees Trusts chap. Flint), Eighth English by it8, is Edition from said: simple property

“The trust where in vested person upon another, one trust nature- for and the prescribed being by settlor, not left to the trust, constructioipof ' que In law. cestui this.case right possession jus put actual into habendif jus right property, disponendi, or the to call legal conveyances trustee execute que estate the cestui trust directs.” ample supported authority, The are text-writers for v. instance Atkins, 565; see 70 Vt. Hill Atkins Hill, v. 90 Neb. Hamlin 43, l. c. v. 88 Me. Mansfield, 48; Ringrose App. l. c. 133, 138; 664, v. Calif. Gleadall, 17 l. c. 669. point.

We find in no decision our courts directlv Wulff, In Mo. 50 S. 542, 1. 556, Cornwell v. 439, c. W. approvingly. Perry quoted on 520, Trustee, section v. decision Walton Cornwall was overruled Mo. we do un Drumtra, 489, 54 S. W. but not Perry quoted on Trusts derstand that the matter been disavowed. respondent, counsel true, It is stated for (section commonly called uses,” our “statute of itas 1909), personalty. affect Revised does Statutes Slevin, c. 176, 1. 32 Mo. Trustee, Brown, See 203 MISSOURI APPEAL

Fisiier v. Fisher. though applicable even rule seen we have As incapable person the'beneficiary or other be a minor Trustees, Perry managing on Trusts affairs. its supra, sec. 521. respondent assert

Learned counsel proved de- alleged an active trust had use peisonal property of a Fisher, fendant proved they active claim their .minor, they prove had offered fact based on trust is uncor- testimony S. Fisher alone, this party; conversation by any roborated third or trustor the donor Nathan Walter imposed donor himself, invest retain and following To collect, duties: money Lucille until the called Pearl age, over which time turn the becomes understanding Nathan between and also her; to have the that he was Walter witness take custody child; he and mother were care of the child. *12 Fisher the offered true that defendant S. testimony, by-his prove but it cannot own these facts

to proved very rea- them for sufficient that said testimony, son the learned trial court excluded that being ground dead, Nathan on the Walter testify not to could conversations understandings the dead man to between himself and between here the cause of action. them, contract respondents rely Learned counsel decisiou Supreme Weakley, in v. 109, Court 155 Mo. Pitts our support 1055, of their 1 .c. in contention. 143, 55 W. place it the trust “What At said: only are known if there a Mrs. were, to was plaintiffs Weakley allow not themselves would by them.” disclose assumed trial to This is Supreme mean that the Court ad- criticized counsel to visedly excluding in of the trial action court holding any testimony. expression far from such This thing. disqualification witnesses, where one 59 TERM, 1918. v. parties dead, the contract or cause action to imposed by 1909, Revised section Statutes frequent in our State, decision a matter of been always not near them, decisions One of reconcilable. point Haughowout, in that of here, 207 Mo. Gibbs v. 384, 105 S. In that case it W. held that was grantee in being trial, a deed at the time of the dead grantor competent testify is not a to witness pursuance what the contract in which deed was Supreme holding our made, was Court that in case the trial court had permitting committed error Mm testify.

In Crawford, Collins Mo. 1. c. objection 538, where W. been made the defend- testifying ant party, a contract with a deceased our Supreme “simply Court said that witness testified to disposition he made of the trust funds hands. his by plaintiff This suit for lands which he claimed by were devised to not him, mother, his Mrs. Collins, but grandfather, Crawford. Mr. Mrs. was not Collins interested in action and person- this neither her heirs nor representatives parties al were suit. Plaintiff through does claim Mrs. Collins, as a but purchaser grandfather. from the We do not think any application statute developed.” to the In facts the case at bar the cause action on contract made for the benefit of the her father with and the defendant Fisher, as being provisions claimed Fisher under the that contract he handle the trust is entitled to way, deriving a certain from the authorization given verbally to him his deceased brother. We distinctly think that case under the statute comes *13 (section 6354), provides that “in which actions where parties original one of the the contract or cause of to dead, action in issue and trial . . . the other is party to contract cause action not be or shall such to testify in in either favor admitted his own favor or any party claiming the action under him,” etc., to 203 MISSOURI APPEAL v. excluding and that there error in the trial no court testimony. this respondent support counsel for cite in

Learned their-proposition, objection that there to a is no trust partly by because it created a is written instrument partly by oral two declarations, cases: Kendrick v. Ray, Bloodgood 173 Mass. v. Ben. Massachusetts Supp. impossible Life 44 N. Y. 563. It Ass’n, is to tell reading opinions from the those in whether cases parties proposing give testimony not or to the oral qualified to the intent trust or were its terms statute, witnesses point far our so applicable. concerned we do think those cases supra, interesting very In Atkins, a deci- Atkins Supreme sion of Vermont, Court it which appeared that the insured had endeavored will his dispose proceeds policies ain manner provided policies, different from applicable held that construction rules of to wills applicable are also the construction of policies (I. like contracts. further there held c. 566): general

“It rule that a a of life insurance, belong, and the under it, become due from person persons issued, time it is the' named in it beneficiary or beneficiaries, that there no Is power person any procuring in the the insurance, act person to transfer his, will, other deed or person modify in the named, interest nor and limit (Cases such An irrevocable interest. is created.” Supreme are cited from Court the United States Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Indiana Connecticut.) procures person

“The insurance on who life payable beneficiary policy, thereby ato in the named voluntary equivalent effect and what creates voluntary benefit of settlement, such to ciary, benefi- when trust or settlement once created, by nor modified annulled act cannot be declara- *14 61 TERM, 1918. y.

Fisher Fisher. party power creating lion of the revoca- unless a of it, of or tion modification reserved the terms is purpose.” trust for holding parole testimony

But we are can- not given explain in- not be here to of trust question volved. That hold not before us. We do competent prove that it for the trustee was to not of character his trust and duties his creat- trustor, conversations between himself appearing or of no one else to have heard it or present. on the to have been evidence To admit such testimony dead, sole open would the trustor of perpetration

the door to the the fraud. unlimited of disqualification We think that in the case at bar the testimony applicable-here the statute properly offered excluded. was It will be noticed that answer and some his testimony, charges defendant that the guardian expended all of wasted property sup- will have draw on this for her fund port, and that it to the interést would be hazardous guardian. the child to turn the over appointed by, the ex- under, was jurisdiction, instance, clusive in the of the Pro- .first bate Court and to be assumed that that court it expenditures Avill make for undue either allowances permit any wasting fund of the ward. policy clause of the here

This involved makes payable monthly, minds, to our that, very evinces a clear intention the immediate daughter. support father in- need and If the become when tended create available very easy age, became of have that, it was done likely, in that have a much situation, could secured larger payable majority sum arrival daughter premium paid for the same that he to secure monthly payments Construing of installments. provision we or other would wills con- very that it clear intention tracts, seems 203 MISSOURI APPEAL provide the immediate needs the father -to daughter payments fell due. if until she lived testimony be- the relations have We read plaintiff, grandmother, guardian of tween the who the be admitted must and the S. Fisher. *15 they showing himself, made very however, we itself, are not That, amicable. the removal of as a sufficient cause would not hold the trustee. judg-

Our conclusion on whole case is be reversed and ment of the court must circuit to order that court cause remanded with directions accounting by the collected amount of funds company from trustee from the defendant payments beginning made to him until due accounting, found whatever sum is time of the date of the be interest from collection due, adjudged against be him and installments, the several required pay amount to be falling plaintiff, un- due hereafter that all amounts involved be the clause der terms of paid America Prudential long guard- Fannie to Mrs. Scammell remains major- arriving the ward ward, ian ity paid payments until the whole direct, preserving contingent right made, have shall been in- Fisher, Maude S. mother, unpaid during Pearl stallments life of Lucille provided adjudged for in the to be costs against Clyde both of suit and of the present appeal, payable individually by him and not Becker, of the trust fund. Allen and out concur. JJ.,