*1 Mary Eliza William Blair HUGHES and Mosby, Plaintiffs-Respondents, beth Neely, NEELY, Neely, Lois M.
Bernita W. Margaret Hughes, Hughes, Thom E. J. B. Margaret Douglass, E. as G. Trustee for Douglass, Hughes, James M. under Will of B, Margaret Hughes, E. J. Trustee for Mayfield, Hughes, M. Allen M. Frances Douglass, Douglass, G. J. and T. Mott Douglass, Mar Guardian and Curator for Defendants, garet N.C.M., Hughes, Neely Neely, Lois M.
Bernita W. Neely, Appellants. Mary
William Blair Eliza HUGHES and Mosby, Plaintiffs-Respondents, beth Margaret Parish, SMITH,
Brooxie Nell Ella Doug Hughes, Hughes, J. B. Thomas G. lass, Trustee for un Douglass, (Deed) der Will of James M. J. Hughes, B. Trustee Hughes, Mayfield, M. Frances Allen M. Douglass, Douglass, J. Mott Thomas G. Douglass, Douglass, and T. G. Guardian Hughes, and Curator N.C.M., Defendants, Smith, Appellant.
Brooxie Nell 47287, 47288.
Nos. Missouri,
Supreme Court of
Division No. 1. 11, 1960.
Jan. Rehearing
Motion for Transfer to Court Opinion en Banc Denied and Modified on Court’s Own Motion Feb. *2 (hereinafter
lants Neely referred to SOacres), with son, Doug- his Thomas G. lass, as trustee “in the use and trust for *3 benefit my Margaret daughter beloved E. Hughes for term natural life of her at her death heirs of the remainder to the said Margaret Hughes, -E. from the free interest, claims or any, living if now of the husband Margaret Hughes.” The E. provided: will further G. “The said Thos. Douglass Margaret as trustee for said E. Hughes shall power have full and con- trol Margeret of the E. interest said Hughes estate, in said real collect the shall thereon, pay rents taxes, insurance, as- sessments, repairs manage and otherwise property said Margaret for the said E. Noble, Billings, Bradley and V. pay and shall to the said over James Cable, Ken- W. Charles M. Noble and Margaret Hughes, E. income from the net John nett, appellants. for property said in such and install- amounts ments as the said deem for trustee shall H. by McHaney McHaney, William & Margaret best interests of E. the said respondents. Billings, Kennett, for Hughes; trustee, judg- and said in his if appears
ment it be to interest of said Margaret Hughes, shall have full HYDE, Presiding Judge. power joinder with the of the said Mar- garet Hughes mortgage sell the in- These actions cancel two cases are terest of the said two Court entered the Circuit said real estate.” We note that the will of County termi- of Pemiscot Douglass specifically M. also left de- James land, separate nated tracts vest- trusts scribed to each land other four chil- his beneficiary ed title in of the (three dren sons and a so that daughter) contingent all divested title of remain- estate, each had a life each devise cases, same involving dermen. These will, being: bequeath my “I and devise to validity judgments, issues as of the 1930 (naming him) beloved son the term of for court for trial and the consolidated life, his natural and at his death the re- entered finding decrees him) (naming mainder to heirs of said null and aside void ordered them set following described real estate.” defendants, have cancelled. The who subsequent appealed, purchasers from In M. Douglass established James beneficiary. chil- the life Plaintiffs are by an deed intervivos trust in the land now beneficiary, dren of who is still liv- the life by defendant-appellant claimed Smith ing, and are remaindermen. (hereinafter referred to as the Smith 40 The County; land involved is in Dunklin his acres) with son Douglass T. G. as the suits to terminate the conveyed trusts were com- The deed trustee. the land to County menced there and went to Douglass, executors, Pemiscot “T. his G. adminis- change In trators, successors, trust, of venue. all land and con- however, involved Douglass fidence, was owned purposes M. the uses James will, Paragraph then out, who made a Fifth of hereinafter set other, for none which established the land now For the to-wit: sole use and benefit of the Neelys, defendants-appel- claimed Hughes during said her na- beneficiary, band appointed direct to of the life go life, and at her death tural parte provid- proceeding trustee in an body.” deed ex the heirs of her The County Circuit heirs Court Dunklin and took to the “go direct ed for the land to charge donor land. was other representatives” of There legal G; leaving in each Douglass, In T. trust. Hughes “should die Margaret E. trustee, with body.” deed children, heirs of her sister, $5,000and mortgage ac- made a first provided trustee “to for the $4,500, both mortgage above second lands charge and control tive Company, to the Prudential Life Insurance conveyed life time during the *4 and which the covered land herein involved receive Hughes, and to Margaret E. other arising from land. profits and issues rents and lands, and and from said growing out of Plaintiffs are daughter the son and annual regular the payment after the of Margaret of Hughes E. Hughes. and B. expenses necessary J. repairs taxes and and defendants, The other appealing than the the said of upkeep and care for the defendants, are the daughter other and the conveyed and aft- lands, year, each herein three sons of the settlor of the trusts. compensation for deducting reasonable er petition Plaintiffs’ herein in * each case was * * pay and over turn his services counts; in two one count was to declare net Hughes Margaret E. the to said void the 31, 1930, decree entered July herein the lands from annual income Case No. 7003 in the Court of Circuit from and benefit veyed sole use for her Pemiscot County and the other to set aside The natural life.” during her year year judgment, July 31, 1930, also entered “in the event provided that deed further Case 7002 in No. Margaret court. necessary, become it should Hughes and Hughes plaintiffs B. were J. Douglass, T. G. said judgment of the in these 1930 cases and defendants here- the lands any part all of mortgage other children of of the settlor and benefit conveyed the use the trusts Hughes, and William Blair one during her Hughes Margaret E. said plaintiffs herein, who was the son hereby au- is Douglass time, the said T. G. Hughes Hughes. and B. J. consent the written with thorized and plaintiff herein, The other Mary Elizabeth Hughes and witnessed the said Mosby, was born until after the de witnesses, to competent more by two or July 31, cree and 1930. Case herein real estate part of the mortgage such statutory No. 7002 was a suit to ascer may he an amount as conveyed to such 527.150; (see tain and determine title proper care necessary for deem statutory references are to RSMo and V.A. Margaret E. support stated); M.S. unless otherwise and the a life retained time.” Margaret Hughes decree found own land. in this simple er in fee of both of land tracts However, provided in both herein involved. both It was the will and the suits parties, that, Douglass between on the if T. G. should fail or the same heard deed act, day, record, son, on the same refuse to settlor’s Mott same involved J. subject matter, Douglass, should the same with the same act as trustee. M. James appointed day February ad litem on guardian died Douglass his wife represent trial minor de Douglass survived him but Belle died in fendant, Hughes, Blair daughter sons, William one of and three His named affirmatively herein, plaintiffs appears also herein. survived as defendants him. the record that Douglass charge took of the land T. G. except to the land under managed no claim it until had trustee October father, and deed of her M.
27, 1925,
resigned.
he
Mott
will
Doug-
when
James
J.
involved,
creating the trusts
Douglass,
Hughes,
to act and B.
refused
hus-
lass
J.
pital
petition
expenses
bills
traveling
full
set out in
which were
her husband
pay
before
was unable to
these be-
therefore
and were
No. 7003
suit
loss;
cause of
his
No.
financial
that after
in Case
decree
when the
the court
appointment
conclusively
B.
as trustee
entered,
show
was
J.
there
$5,000,
mortgages
on the
declared therein.
due
the title
she dfS not
on
due
$2,000,
taxes and
records
assessment
judicial
notice
The rule
parties
due
obligations $3,000;
other
argued
and that
other cases
86-87;
the land
104-106,
would
under mortgages
be sold
(see
Secs.
20 Am.Jur.
624);
tax judgments
50, p.
unless
time loan
long
but
Evidence §
C.J.S.
could be
land,
situation,
consid
made on
B.
must
the cases
J.
Hughes as
procure
with the
could not
be-
trustee
trial
consolidated for
ered as
applicable
cause of
facts,
the condition
pleadings
title.
issues and
same
Tracy
Sluggett, See
each.
It was also stated that it was the inten-
authorities
936, and
232 S.W.2d
tion
ample
provisions
settlor to make
476-480, Secs.
cited;
see
Am.Jur.
out of the
net income of
care
p.
112b(l),
92-95; 1
Actions §
C.J.S.
*5
for
Hughes during
her life
May
of
Church
Wiman
Christian
v. First
and at her death remainder
go
her
to
to
field, Ky.
821, 117S.W.2d
children, but on account of
economic
ditions,
petition
crop
reducing
contained
floods and
The
in Case.No. 7003
failures
land,
the
sought to have the
income from
two counts. Count I
the
which conditions
impossible
performance
could not
anticipated,
purport-
be
“the
trusts declared
of
simple
per-
the
in fee
ed trust
herein
and the title to
land vested
instrument
cannot be
intended,”
formed
Hughes.
“having
Count
and
failed
absolute
purpose
void”;
sought
II
court construe the
its
it is therefore
and
to
the
declare and that if
adjudge,
trust instruments and
the trust instruments are not de-
right,
interest of each clared void
the land
title and
and
back to
define
reverted
parties.
heirs
his
In
I the
creat-
of the settlor
intention will
of the
Count
deed
thwarted, Margaret
and
ing
Hughes
40 acres and the
fail
be
Smith
part
deprived
the trust in the
re-
creating
of the will
will be
of
and
estate
(They
Neely 50 acres
in full.
It
al-
were set out
mainder will be lost.
was further
incorporated by
leged,
declaring
reference
Count
as a
for
the trusts
reason
physically
II.)
alleged
It
heirs
that it was
void and
title
revert back to
to
impossible
to
for
written instruments
“that the
of
(Her
again
performed
conceive and bear children.
cannot be
under construction
Mosby,
out,
daughter, plaintiff Mary
donor,
Elizabeth
of the
carried
and the intention
condition,
year, 1931.)
the next
It was stat-
was born
further account
on the
trustee,
Douglass,
had
terms,
ed that G.
exe-
therein
T.
and restrictions contained
land;
part
mortgages
two
the true
vague
cuted
on
indefinite and
being
and
account
accumulated
meaning
the first on
of taxes
of the donor cannot
and
intent
settlor, together
in-
during
lifetime
from the face of said
be determined
money
necessity
obtaining
struments,
further
account
with
for
and on
country gen-
purpose
for Mar-
building
home
conditions
the economic
* * *
on the further account
erally,
and
garet Hughes;
second on account
weather conditions
excessive
conditions,
general financial
floods re-
period of six or
covering a
seven
rains
ducing the
land so
it
income
donor,
the death
subsequent to
years
produce
provide
enough
did not
to
crop
produced
and caused
floods
the same
which
Margaret E.
and at
time
the income from the
and reduced
failures
pay
It was also stated
interest
taxes.
they
not self
an extent
to such
making
necessary
it
lands
health failed
that her
rendering
necessary
it
to
bills,
sustaining, thus
expend large
sums for doctor
hos-
lands,
prosecuting
caused
has
which
adjudica-
encumber the
suit to secure an
interest,
the further
tion of
their
title
accumulation of
as remaindermen in the
expenses of the bene- 40
question
acres of
increased
land in
contingent
account of
brought
upon their
ficiary
father,
said instruments
survival
under
of their
could
devisee of the
sickness,
facts
which
land
will under
about
which
they
said do-
by the
claim.
contemplated
The
say
defendants
and was
that this
carry
interest does not
it
with
nor.”
right
protection
to sue
its
during
theory that
proceeded on the
petition
the lifetime of their father.
It
ais
suf-
the title
void
was declared
the trust
ficient answer that the statute
which
under
settlor, his
the heirs
reverted
they are
provides
proceeding
otherwise.
would
Margaret E.
children, then
gives
remedy
‘any
its
person claiming
simple
in fee
have title
be entitled
title,
any
estate or interest in
property,
real
left
had
the settlor
involved
whether the
legal
same
equitable,
cer-
children
conveyed
his other
by will or
or contingent,
tain
present
reversion,
inor
equal or
real estate
portions
“large
or remainder.’ Section
Rev.St.1909.”
here-
real
than the
value
greater
Now Sec.
(See
527.150.
also Moore
and con-
bequests
Moore,
in mentioned
Mo.Sup.1959,
tion S.W.2d 983; Farrar, plaintiffs Finley 26, 978, that v. 351 Appellants contend Mo. 596; 593, capacity sue, being ex con S.W.2d State rel. legal 171 had no National Smith, Mo.App., life tenant 134 remaindermen Lead Co. S.W.2d tingent inconsistently 1061, None that of these cases involved yet living; also estate; this by limitations and real but rule been barred has plaintiffs are title seeking they long to cases remove a applied waited to sue. void because so laches 44 as a on title. was ruled cloud judgment of these contentions The first Am.Jur. Quieting Starbuck, Mo.Sup., 209 74 Title 14 22, Fountain v. S.W. § C.J.S. 97-98; 165, plaintiffs *7 equity jurisdiction for case to set created aside is the rule that cloud respects to judgments and cancel these the in- proceeding for purpose the by an instrument or appears removing on its face or of the validity of cloud cast these judg- that be the evidence must appear in will upon ments the interests plaintiffs of it, held that a cloud support to offered contingent remaindermen. invalidity legal the such that is exists solely decision we base our on the it. Mer Since required to discover acumen is cases, 335; necessary 1930 it is not (1873) of 51 Mo. record Bank v. Evans chants’ 26, parties the contentions of the (1895) Mo. to consider 131 v. St. Louis Verdin 52; concerning admission and exclusion of evi- 480, Hannibal & St. 36 S.W. 33 S.W. 142, dence, grounds urged setting (1900) aside 154 Mo. v. Nortoni R. Co. J. of on basis 220; (1902) judgments 95 extrinsic Perkins v. Baer 55 S.W. appellants 939; fraud, knowledge of of such 70, Mo.App. 68 S.W. v. Board Jewett conveyances 186; time of the to 647, 81 (1904) 181 Mo. S.W. fraud man beneficiary life and hus- McLaughlin (1910) 228 Mo. from v. them McLaughlin 21; validity appointment band, 680, Am.St.Rep. 129 and 635, S.W. 137 successor trustee. This Coyne (1912) 164 B. Min. Co. v. of Creek Center J. quiet title, 148; to class action as was 492, Pocoke v. not a Mo.App. 147 S.W. Moore, supra, but as stated was 501, v. (1914) Mo. 165 S.W. Moore 256 Peterson plaintiffs’ to declare status and Growney (1919) 279 1017; v. Mo. an action Maxwell judgments 1930 427; remove (1922) v. Ruhr cancel 113, Mahen S.W. 213 thereby plaintiffs’ 164; contingent on cast 500, Schwab v. cloud 240 S.W. Mo. 293 116, (1925) 310 Mo. 274 S.W. interests. Louis St.
8 with a contingent involved more bene 1930 remainder to other cases identity ficiaries presently of whose cannot mere termination than only determined, attempted purposes not because one 1930 only trusts, ultimately settlor which were is to' vest the re terminate mainder Margaret E. in fee in designated. lifetime of those As continue for Pomeroy’s stated destroy the Equity Jurisprudence, to- Hughes, but also Sec. 991c: remainders, on the “A vest will be de which would termination It creed beneficiary the trusts. where action in such will defeat the death of the in the tention of deprive stated the settlor the facts remote is our view that decree are petition found in the beneficiaries their 1930 interests under the judg trust.” Will, 1930 See In re for these 217 as a basis insufficient Stack’s 94, affirmatively appears 316; Wis. 324, 258 it N.W. 97 ments therefore A.L.R. no au a impos the court had case for termination for from the record sibility see thority Ringo Ringo, Ky., to enter such 299 S.W. (cid:127) 112, 2d law. The they a matter of which no are void as remainder was in volved; pur “if the Allen, rule is established Likewise Donaldson v. well 182 626, Mo. become 81 poses trust is created S.W. which a discussed in Gib * * * Gibson, infra, son v. accomplishment impossible Mo. cit. loc. A.L.I. Re S.W. terminated.” loc. cit. 565. the trust will be 335; Trusts, Second, Sec. see statement that, years pre- is no true doubt 157, 97 A.L.R. 92 A.L.R. also Annotations ceding 1930, bene- the needs of the life 86; 325; Sec. C.J.S. Am.Jur. ficiary greater the income Trusts, 927; 93, p. Scott on Sec. Trusts § expected. than the land less settlor Equity Pomeroy’s Jurisprudence However, presented situation similar Likewise, owing cir “if Sec. 991c. Gibson, in Gibson S. the settlor not known to cumstances 561, 565, pe- which one W. count anticipated him the continuance of sought tition abolish terminate substantially im defeat or the trust would grounds predominant on trust purposes accomplishment pair the daughter, idea was that his permit trust, will direct or the court beneficiary, should never be in of the trust.” the termination Restatement un- want that the real estate was Second, Trusts, Sec. see also Scott productive, hardly equaling the income However, Trusts, authorized beneficiary expense. The life had no chil- application is an action this situation *8 dren, years was unmarried and 76 old. We principle under which the the court will might said: “Such a situation arise with permit or the trustee to-deviate direct by trust created any reference to will or if, owing trust terms of a circumstances otherwise, indisputable but fact re- anticipat not known to the settlor and not that court has mains neither the this moral by him, compliance ed would defeat or power right nor the lawful to substitute its impair substantially accomplishment of judgment on matters of business for the purposes the trust. of See Restatement testators others Second, creating of Trusts, Therefore, Sec. of 167. power noted of courts of trusts.” We usually course would be au equity “to annul otherwise terminate property sell requires thorization to appropriate circumstances, under expense as produces more than the income it purposes of continuance of the where trust have been pro trust as to' the b, 336, accomplished comment their accomplishment ceeds. See or. Restate has Trusts, impossible.” However, of Second. Certainly ment become we this is held that all could be done purpose where the of the testator trust is as to control, the maintenance of for life beneficiary saying: must also remainder “But
9 to the Applying principles practical these would, all trust this to abolish any on the record facts shown face of the ceremony, idle but an purposes, be case, this note that the trust in this we undisputed facts event. Under Neely of court, by 50 the will acres was created how the case, cannot we see Douglass. M. former Sec. annulled, do Under could trust event the James 468.320,replaced 474.470, by Sec. the inter adjudge Gibson Miss than otherwise in est vested devised to’ lands life estate of a the owner only; being Louis her life the remainder Likewise, St. Dwyer v. question.” persons who, of the 481, S.W. the termination Co., 286 Mo. Union Trust estate, life be the providing shall life trust held that a heirs 1068, court (Sec. pur tenant daughter 442.490) paid as to be to the who take for the income chasers, simple her in fee go by testator, property to and not descent. of death, Dorman, 611, Brock v. her the time Mo. 98 S.W.2d living children 672; Daniels, life- see also Cook Mo.Sup., her v. during terminated could not be 573; chil- S.W.2d her Thomas time, Higginbotham, with the consent v. even Mo.Sup., only con- pointed S.W.2d dren, 234. out because her children As (98 v. the Brock 676), Evans case S.W.2d loc. cit. tingent remaindermen. See these statutes Rankin, Shal- abolished Shelly’s 329 Mo. S.W.2d rule of Co., 319 case so that Valley Mississippi ler Trust “remainderman v. takes the devised, by Shanna- Ewing any Mo. 3 S.W.2d inheritance from purchaser,’ one but han; ‘as 113 Mo. being S.W. reason of person, who at the death of the life Wisconsin case, supra, the In the Stack tenant answered the description in the Gibson, Gibson followed Supreme Court will.” This was a continent remainder be loc. N.W. 94, 258 Wis. supra, saying (217 cause, until the life dies, tenant no one can 322): “The loc. cit. A.L.R. cit. know who would then descrip answer the en- equity to courts power exercised tion in noted, the will. It is further to be su- trusts is a pointed administration force the out (280 Gibson case carry out is exerted power. It pervisory loc. cit. 219 S.W. 566), loc. cit. even equi- settlor. Courts if the terminated, the intention trust be all Margaret E. power their see ty within all would will do have would be a with in accordance executed the trust only for her lifetime im- so-called results from gave its What terms. will nothing in but a life ordinarily a performance is possibility Furthermore, terest. trustee had only trust. from the does right interest, to sell deviation but that in carry necessary to imperatively terest, joinder when it is with the intention. possible the settlor’s any out as far without decree termina right A will not defeat the equity tion of (The court of the trust. will said the trus trust. benefit power of remaindermen to tee “shall have full joinder with the * * * any the court In no event has the said E. Hughes to mort prop- law either the right gage under the turn or sell the interest Margan-et *9 proceeds of the sale over in said real erty Therefore, estate") or the setting aside the trust residuary legatees Neely free of the trust.” as to the futile, a acres was idle ceremony; and, attempted to' do exact- The any event, it no had effect proper- whatever on the that, namely, turn over the trust ly title to the trust; remainder. beneficiary ty free of the to the life authority court no had and we hold The to the situation as Smith simple title
power to vest fee whatever a different, very although beneficiary property in the life acres is broader to the trust authority given to was the trustee than in trusts. by contingent The trust a the will. holds created the trust remainder destructible.” pointed further by deed and was As created land was out in (see this this article Hughes for also 6 Margaret 470), Mo.Law for the benefit of Rev. we held in Lewis Lewis, go “at direct her death her life but 136 S.W.2d Likewise, body.” under that a life (to of her tenant heirs whom land was de- de- 442.490, answering the vised persons “for the life, term her her and at body” when she death scription of her to the “heirs body, absolutely”) heirs her purchasers acquired who be entitled to take as dies “shall interest, the reversionary which estate in fee tail simple”; or if an in fee at commonlaw would have been held 442.470, es- abolishing merger such created, Sec. is destroying contingent remain- ders, tates, the heirs of would ensure that nevertheless “a life had estate in by purchase rath- real body grantee estate took described and a vested rever- sionary Suc- er descent. See Trusts and fee, than interest in reversionary 1957—Fratcher, 23 cession interest in fee subject only being di- Missouri— is true that vested 470. It Mo.Law Rev. respondent’s event death, adjoin- leaving other Smith 40 acres and surviving her, trust body.” heirs of her Neely This ing provided, trust land as the was ruling that a contingent re- could, with not, mainder SO acres did trustee cannot destroyed be by common Hughes, law merger. consent of written Under all the authorities, we an amount must such and do mortgage the “to hold in this case that a court necessary equity for the may deem has he power no destroy con- beneficiary. The support” tingent remainders, care of such a decree of termina- it under this tion mortgage original trustee did involved, upon the facts apparent- mortgage stated in authority but this petition found financing; and no the ly through paid other and decree therein. made 40 acres is Smith claim title to are affirmed. any other under a foreclosure authority. The such under mortgage made All concur. a deed based on the Smith land is
claim to and her husband On Motion Rehearing or to trustee; but there Hughes as B. Transfer to Banc and J. creating the authority in the deed nowas land and trustee to sell for the PER CURIAM. nothing more had appellants’ In contention, view of land to sell. in their interest life
than a rehearing motion or to transfer ter- that even a Therefore, must we hold Banc, en Court the trial court erred give her trust could mination of refusing to hear alleged evidence on the trust remainder defenses, point ap- affirmative we out that who would given to those already had pellants misconceive the character of these description of “heirs answer her death rulings we actions made deed and that this had body”; cerning In first place, them. these to the on the title remain- whatever effect possession; actions for were not and as der. can be noted no such action we maintained ends, so (6 Mo.Law Rev. article until the that the matter excellent an In improvements L. allowance Willard Eckhardt could 268, 295) Professor “that at that Moreover, conclusion re- an issue time. these reaches *10 complete class adjudi- indestructible Missouri actions for un- were are mainders decisions,” title, Moore, was Moore existing saying statutes and cation of v. der 742, Mo.Sup., 329 but case has been found S.W.2d which were Missouri “no
U determining declaratory relief effect Irving Jacobs, Samuel doing SALITAN and void prior judgments cases were style business under the and firm name in- did not remainder affect Company, Appellants, of Credit Industrial in- the land plaintiffs in terests of these v. volved. CARTER, DINWIDDIE, EALEY AND pur- We held Corporation, Respondent. destroy the porting wipe out No. 22902. void, absolutely tingent remainders City Appeals. Kansas Court of (the record showing on the face Missouri. found pleadings and facts stated in 1, authority, Feb. no court had decree) judg- such power to render jurisdiction or conclusively the facts stated
ments no had plaintiffs therein
showed that had judgments and such
cause of action these Therefore right whatever.
no thereto pro- anyone or bind could entirely anyone. different This is
tect or fail- for fraud
cancellation rescission or requirements procedural comply with
ure to void- judgment amake
which would on the face void
able. A de- entirely or disregarded “may be
record clared effect It has may any purpose or at inoperative no be attacked sought to be legal or binding by a any given to it. any tribunal person force place. or adversely *** [*] efficacy * [*] any proceeding, direct it,
affected * ** any time. [T]he collateral and it would be the same
situation is 198 30A judgment.”
there Am.Jur. 780, 863; 49 45, p. Sec. Sec. C.J.S. 794; 401, Law p. American Judgments § Judgments, Restatement
Institute 475, Stewart, 235
11; 361 Mo. Noyes v. Arne, 348 Mo. 333; Davison v.
S.W.2d 155; Geatley, v. Rhodus 347 S.W.2d 631; S.W.2d v. Guhman
Mo. 1; 427, 142 Grothe, S.W.2d Trues Mo. Co., Public 341 Mo. Service Louis v. St. dale Gray 135; A.L.R.
402, 107 S.W.2d Clement, Mo. 246 S.W. White, S.W. Charles L.R.A.,N.S., v. Board 545, 21 Jewett Appel 647, 81
man, S.W. 186. 181 Mo. rehearing motion for transfer
lants’ en Banc is overruled. Court
to the
51
notes
f, p.
follows: “The
are
Annota-
as
C.J.
Smarr,
1058.”
See also Hankins v.
reason
One
A.L.R. 62-76.
tion 78
Certainly,