*1 1170 petition, decree
Company. no claim of mistake and the There is Furthermore, tending question. is no evidence rules no such there parties, including the Phoenix Mutual Insurance show that Life parties Company, agreement required that the understood Furthermore, conclusively an endorsement. evidence shows Company defendant and the Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance requirements responded all the reference to plaintiff with loan. Kirkley,
Plaintiff Stark v. 129 App. cites 108 W. Hun, 586, Lawrenceville Cement Co. Parker N. Supp. Chauncey Arnold, Y. 24 N. Y. 330. Those questions cases mortgage. They rule defect in a ap- are without plication to the facts this case. judgment should and the reversed cause remanded' with
directions, cancel deed purporting convey the property to plaintiff. so ordered. All concur.
Frank Barnett P. Lankford, Lankford Frank Weedin, Mollie Mary Lankford, Jesse G. Lankford, C. Thomas Edwards, John Lankford, Lankford, Clinton Lankford, Joe Mary Lee Lankford, Gabathuler, Perucca, Ella Vena Hol V. A. man, William Catron, Gordon, William Nave, Forrest Ward,
Bettie Sethman, Mattie Catron, Joe Catron, Josie Davis, Ella Tipping, Catron, Catron, John Charles Fletcher Catron, Jr., Hackler, Thomas M. Joe E. E. Margaret Catron, Defendants, Erickson, Isabella E. E. Margaret Appellants Erickson Isabella . 159 (2d) One,
Division December Rehearing February Denied, 26, 1942.
Byland, Stinson, Thomson, Boy & B. Mag Thomson Bohert E. Bosenwald for al.
Frank F. Catron for Catron and C. Catron et John Charles *3 Lankford. Barnett Frank Ike Shelton title to and BRADLEY, is an to determine action C. This *4 Lafayette County. trial court partition to 365.36 of land The acres in and ordered appellants found had no interest in the .land partition. from Appellants appealed Also a appointed. receiver was ap- ordering appealed the decree from the order partition and also pointing a appeals receiver. These were consolidated. plaintiff defendants designate caption
The and we as those Catron, deceased, died are the collateral kin who testate of F. James surviving Erickson, Appellant, and seized of the E. is land. E. daughter of Mary Erickson, a of Elizabeth deceased husband Catron Catron, is the widow Margaret James F. Isabella Appellant, Catron. on the Haclder, Defendant, of James F. M. is a tenant Catron. Joe land. involved. will construction of the F. Catron is May 21, 1912. May 15, 1906,
The will was and testator died executed widow, Margaret death, duly After his probated. Isabella, Elizabeth, here, Mary an survived appellant daughter, and a years old The widow was
the testator. He had no other children. Mary Elizabeth was testator, and at the time of the death of the Erickson, and died testate Mary E. E. appellant, Elizabeth married refer to May Hereinafter we and without issue on Margaret and collateral kin and to E. E. Erickson respondents as Isabella as Catron fol- will are as F. Catron pertinent paragraphs of the James :
lows Mary Elizabeth my daughter, give “2nd. I beloved and devise to being lying and situate Catron, following real described description of land Lafayette County, Missouri, (here follows viz. natural during her enjoyed by her for and question), to be held and surviving- des-, children or their life, child or and remainder to her cendants. ‘‘ my named, pay hereby my executor, hereinafter to 3rd. I direct my personal property wife, Margaret out of Catron, beloved Isabella twenty dollars may of thousand possessed, I .the sum of which die de- the real estate ($20,000.00), equal to the value which sum is of (2) Catron, of my Mary in section daughter, Elizabeth two vised during natural by her will, enjoyed her for and this used and life. my wife, Margaret Isabella give bequeath I further
“4th. and goods furniture what- my and Catron, all household absolutely, description. ever of five hereby my and I direct “5th. It is sum my education of for the ($5,000.00) dollars be set aside
thousand sum I make the said' daughter, Mary Elizabeth and beloved charge devised upon the estate ($5,000.00) of five thousand dollars my daughter. wife and my wife, Margaret Isabella give bequeath I “6th. and residue my Mary Catron, all the rest Elizabeth except provided may possessed, I die which seized will, (5) of this (3), (4), and five (2), three four in sections two alike. absolutely, and share mixed, share real, personal or whether Margaret my my the death of beloved “7th. wish that at bequeathed to property Catron, all residue of Isabella to our revert provisions of will shall said wife this Mary Elizabeth Catron.” By paragraph the 4th devised here,. mother, appellants husband and question here in simple fee equal shares and to the same hold “to absolutely. pre- should mother my said husband or the event either per- deceased to said real estate devised me the share of said decease
son is devised to the survivor.” Hopkins Hyde al. v. reasoning et ruling and the We think that the present the case. 382, decisive of 587, 296 S. 317 Mo. W. Hyde ease was to determine to partition title about 360 acres of County. land Chariton The common source of title was Richard. Hyde, S. who daughter died testate 1871. He had one and five By provided sons. the first clause of his he Eliza his D. should have land, “the use and control of all the home tract of together with the acres adjoining, known as tract’ of the 'Moss 77% during her any charge natural life free for or profits rents therefor. my “2nd. I will unto Ann Hyde, Elizabeth her
bodily heirs, together all land, of the home tract of all with the im- provements thereon, together with also the of land known acres 77% as tract’ ‘Moss of land. I remaining
“3rd. will and portion direct that the equally shall be apportioned among my children, divided and other viz., George Hyde, Hyde, Henry W. B. Hyde, Walter E. C. Hyde, Hyde.” and Lucius D. widow, the and the five survived the sons testator. 1873,
In sons, including Henry the five C., plaintiffs father of the case, in that an expressed $8300, conveyed consideration of sister, general their Elizabeth, by warranty deed, Ann all of their controversy. interest in 1904, Henry the land in In C. died intestate. In Ann 1908, testate, single Elizabeth died and without issue. By will, her Elizabeth, subject others, Ann certain claims of de- defendant, Margaret vised the land Hopkins. to the Hyde plaintiffs in the case the deed made to contended that Elizabeth, by Ann brothers, ineffectual, her five far con was so Henry Henry C., cerned the plaintiffs, pre father of because C. sister, defendant, Margaret Hopkins, grantee. deceased his For the Ann land, whom Elizabeth and the other defend devised ants, the Hyde, contention under was that five of Richard S. sons remaindermen; contingent third clause of his were vested that the third clause of the will devised to the five sons Hyde, Henry reversion of Richard S. “and that the interest of C. Hyde never Ann divested, absolute, but became because Hyde having body, taken she, died without her and that heirs dying reversion, under the without deed the interest body, passed of her the fee to the whole” heirs to defendants (296 384). S. W. l. c. held in the
It was
the contention made for the defendants
Hyde
ease was the
of the will concerned.
correct construction
ruling
Hyde
ease,
and followed Gillilan
the court reviewed
Gillilan,
Whitman,
348;
212 W.
283 Mo.
Collins
Watson,
S. W.
Watson
110 Mo.
James Catron will the interest subject daughter the left issue to be in the event divested rule of surviving, contingency not occur. There is but such did no a under a prevent law life tenant construction no that would by subsequent a receiving reversionary from a in fee will interest 411, 44 W. provision al., 329 Mo. in the Rankin et will. Evans v. (2d) 644. 816, 345 Mo. of reason in Lewis v. course followed Lewis In here. (2d) 66, was, effect,
136 S. in have followed the same we 71) (136 (2d) that case we l. : said S. W. c.
“Reviewing us, item 4 the de the facts before find that of we the ‘for term of her respondent real estate the vises described ’ simple. and, death, body, absolutely in life at her heirs of her fee the a in re Respondent, therefore, took life said real estate with a estate body of her prove mainder fee to be heirs in unto those who should 1919, Ann., 3110, R. at her death. Mo. St. Sec. 3110, R. S. Mo. Sec. in fee 1919, Ann., 3110, p. S. Mo. remainder St. Sec. contingent in limited executory was or estate remainder was since the having upon event, to-wit, respondent heirs to take effect an uncertain to-wit, body, persons, of who should the to uncertain those ‘contingent re body definition, the For heirs of at her death. 187, 126 mainder,’ Horton, (2d)W. see Norman v. 344 Mo. 4 by estate of his After the devise this real item of (9). For Hugh Sr., right therein. Lewis, had a of reversion vested Horton, supra, 344 Mo. definition, ‘reversion,’ Norman v. see reversionary the sub (2d) 187, (1). 126 S. W. estate was This Gillilan, ject a the of valid item 7 of will. Gillilan devise under supra. provides, give beloved Item 7 -‘I and devise my estate, personal Lewis, real and Adaline all the remainder of ’ residuary clause, reversionary by estate, mixed. The this transferred that being in the event subject a divested was vested interest but body.’ Upon by of her respondent her death ‘heirs was survived at in the real fee, in reversionary the the interest death of testator Lewis, subject to the described, widow, Adaline vested the item 4 of the contingent remainder devised under life estate and the Gillilan, (Mo.), 263 Gillilan Yeager will. Hobbs v. S. W. supra.” Hopkins, supra; Whitman, supra; Collins v. of filed on behalf briefs, case, were separate present Two it is briefs stated respondents, one these the collateral kin. after life correctly “the trial court held that residuum reversion, passed which was followed a remainder which failed Such, tenant.” at death of life fee to heirs at law the testator’s means And this effect, respondents. contention of all is the reversion to the out, intestate as James F. it turned died “no were the case ary But if such interest the lands involved. 385), c. because S. W. l. (296 could be reached” different result Elizabeth, case would have inherited rights subject marital her mother. whole to the court, objection exception over appellants, The trial testify Vena Holman as to a she claimed to permitted statement shortly testator, F. make to father heard the according to counsel purpose, death in before the testator’s meaning in his respondents, put “to words *7 testator) (the light testified: “He upon them.” Mrs. Holman throw before, day day, talking about his or told father—-he was go Eliza his his death it should and he that it was wish that at said Eliza owned, and that in case property that he he said beth—his —all all of marry, go people it back his didn’t that was beth —that wish. go That his property was back to the heirs. his Catron any he you place said Q. not that time and Do recall whether or at daughter Eliza thing happen in event his about what he wanted to what you recall any surviving her ? Do children beth never did have his heirs—to go to the Catron he A. That it was to back said? ’’ people. not ambiguous, competent. evidence was The will was not the cause remanded with di- judgment should be reversed and discharge him report receive final receiver and rection to respondents, report approved, judgment enter' is when petition kin, land, no dismiss the collateral interest judgment that title to the is partition, and enter Dalton, CC., concur. is ordered. so C., adopted foregoing opinion PER CURIAM: The Bradley, judges opinion All concur. as the court. Company Liquidat Louis, Bank & of St.
Manufacturers Trust LaFayette-South ing Agent for the Bank & Trust Com Side Company, Corporation, Appellant, a Furniture Rossen pany, Harry Gar Corporation, Dawidoff, Bessie Dawidoff, Anna Joseph Rossen, Garfinkel, J. Rossen, finkel, Leo Harris (2d) Rossen A. Florence F. Rossen. Julius One, 12, 1941. Division December February Rehearing Denied, 26, 1942.