Rex v. Masonic Home

589 new trial is sustaining the motion for affirmed Tbe order In- to dismiss defendant Sun with directions remanded cause against two other to trial Company proceed and to vestment Ferguson Bradley, CC., concur. defendants. adopted opinion by Hyde, C., foregoing

PER CURIAM:- The judges the court. All concur. opinion v. Masonic Home of Amelia Rex Walkenhorst Mis and Chester Company County, of St. Louis souri, Corporation, The Trust Flynn, Walk Knickmeyer, Earl Irene Gustav Corporation, Henry Walkenhorst, Walkenhorst, William Julia enhorst, Knickmeyer, C., by Knickmeyer, N. Earl Knickmeyer, Mamie Evangeline Culler, Estate, Emma Guardian of Her Person and Zemblage Walkenhorst, William Defend Durning, Viola Missouri, Appellant. (2d) Home S. W. ants, Masonic 108 72. One, July 30,

Division Campbell WilUam S. and Watts <& Gentry for Home Masonic ' Missouri. Schweitzer <&Drucker Rex; for Amelia Eagleton, Hemvood Js Walkenhorst; Waechter for Chester Foristel, Mudd, Blair <&Haibe nicht, Carlos, Harvey B. Thomas Cox and Walter Wehrle for Irene Flynn, Walkenhorst, Henry Gustav AAralkenhorst,A¥illiam Walken Kniekmeyer horst, Julia and Viola Zemblage; John E. Gorvey Cullen, Fauntleroy Evangeline c& Edwards for Durning. brought the action was and tried in Circuit

FERGUSON, C. This contesting County Mary the will of Louis of St. Court county. Mary probate in that to admitted theretofore age 1932, time death, at the of her June years of eighty-one age she executed time the contested eighty years of the instru- and testament. Her husband Peter will and last ment as marriage, were born of Huth- No children died remarried, leaving- and died without descendants as never maker kin, brother, one collateral three nephews, lawat her heirs all are parties grandnephew; one to this action. and nieces seven 20, 1931, (.1) October directed: will, executed under date of The ’ ‘‘ ’ expenses funeral; just debts payment of her and of last illneás and .Knickmeyer (one (2) legacy grandnephew, $3000 a of to her Earl Flynn legacy niece, to her Irene .proponents); (3) $100.0 of the a of contestant); legacy (a brother,- of to (4). $1000 Gustav "Walk- (a contestant); (5) the residue that all enhorst remainder go corporation of estate to Home of Missouri, the Masonic (one proponents);. (6) Company of the Trust St. Proponents.) County (one be executor. Louis collateral All except one niece Knickmeyer,. kin above mentioned Mamie mother legatee Knickmeyer, a niece joined Emma Culler, Earl as contestants. niece Emma Culler, defendant, The as did named file an answer. The niece Mamie Knickmeyer, Earl, .her son Missouri, corporation, the Masonic Company Home and Trust joined County, defendants, of St. Louis proponents. named as as n The parties will therefore be referred, pro- contestants ponents. allege: (1) testamentary Mary Contestants incapacity of Huthmaker; (2) by undue influence “the agents,, servants representatives of the Home Masonic of Missouri.” The cause was jury on submitted the issue of testamentary capacity alone. against jury From judgment, found will.. on entered that, the verdict, adjudging is writing .contested “instrument the .last will Mary Huthmaker,” and testament of proponent appealed. of Missouri has Masonic.-Home Mrs. Huthmaker’s estate $38,000, composed more appraised at than as follows: se- error. of our review threshold On the examination of the evi seventy-four testimony comprising

dence, witnesses, several making numerous documents voluminous exhibits. record, 594 gives law that, “the consideration primary

may well recall as be property dispose right to capacity mental his possessed of one n for thinking, is not courts way and it to his own according 617, 607, Kidd, 261 v. Mo. for him.” juries [Major to make a will that before a situation such as Therefore in 170 S. W. 881.] diligence care to with evidence court will examine the us upon either evidence undue substantial there is determine whether “Especially incapacity. true testamentary this influence or opinions lay witnesses incapacity, the reason that for mental" we verdict” and case) for the the basis '(as often furnish in this for as the basis closely the facts detailed such witnesses look Kidd, opinion. v. [Major supra.] as upon rely summarizing evidence which contestants Before give general incapacity outline we Showing first testamentary evidence. history from the"uncontradicted Mis. Huthmaker’s derived name Walken early life. Her maiden appears to her Little as who young Peter Huthmaker married hotst. In her womanhood attention He'gave personal Louis. in St. his owned "meatmarkets two charge of other one in Union Market and wife had operated They way two for these on Avenue. markets this Cass disposed They purchased then about seven markets years. acreage stated, acres, than full of land of more is not tract eighty edge have been between of Kirkwood. This seems to somewhere at"the years two They prior 1875 land until about farmed this labor Peter’s death. Mrs. Huthmaker worked at manual work of the farm. To husband in and about outdoor fields they fire from timber on land. gether their wood their Their cut two-story, large dwelling was a thirteen-room house in a blue frame grass lawn large, lawn. Numerous old shaded the trees great personally pride house. Mrs. Huthmaker took lawn and upkeep, mowing the lawn with a lawn attended its late mower as very death. before her She was as summer fond flowers gardens. in her interested flower much Huthmaker was n Strong)' vigorous woman and to have seems had but little illness. frugal. money They She and her husband industrious and saved time, apparently many made investments. Some years, prior death Mrs.' spinster sister, Peter Huthmaker’s Huthmaker’s Mina was, Walkenhorst, recall's, "who writer some years six or seven younger Huthmaker, came to make than Mrs. home with them. much of and continued to live did housework in Mrs. Huth (Mina’s) March, home until her death in 1931." maker’s Mina wholly dependent or income no and was her sister ' the time support.1 farming operations About ceased active of their along the Huthmakers had some land the north and east platted fronting main lots side of the tract lots streets sold Upon the death to time. of her from time husband in their all

595 en by apparently owned which property, personal, real and death !s After her husband tirety, to Huthmaker. passed Mina, big frame her in live, to with sister Huthmaker continued large managed successfully her personally .house. She judgment, after largely looked acting upon her own interests, - profitable real -and made investments, made new investments and 1925. Mrs. Huthmaker deals. She sold several of the lots in estate all her deeds George county prepare Engel, deputy clerk,, .acknowledgment. proponents He was and take her witness long ac gave opinion was, throughout-the.périod.of that she an quaintance her, Though mind. -she did not undertake with of sound labor farming operations physical continued to do carry to on she raising working flowers, her home, her about lawn and about years milking the one cow retained. some next she For chickens preceding date of the will her death-she did contested and until banking Clayton her business at the National Bank of which First Lindeman, will, one D. witnesses to Walter the contested safety deposit box president. She had the bank in which kept mortgages, her bonds, Through. saw her They very close friends. Huthmaker They and Mrs. ladies, as that' these comment We here daily. almost insert neigh a fine depicted Mrs. Huthmaker as proponents, for witnesses throughout judgment person of sound mind and and and bor friend acquaintance. years intimate of close

the twelve their and Evans; Hazel told Miss May, Huthmaker In Mina taken will; her sister going make that she wanted to was experience and she intended to Mina no business of; care during of Mina Mina’s in for the benefit put property trust property for some she wanted the “used life; after Mina’s death compile “a Evans to of old good she asked list purpose;” and Miss . her.” month . . for Later homes in orphans’ and folks’ request, Hazel 1930), Mrs. Huthmaker’s Miss Evans drove at (May, Com- automobile, Mississippi Valley to Evans’ Trust her, in the outside pany where, Evans waited on the in while Miss St. Louis home, prepared a will which took her Mrs. Huthmaker and later company. left the care of the trust in This will executed Mina, the income put property of her trust for benefit of all in support lived, company long for Mina’s as she the trust to be used executor, given authority made trustee and the trustee was upon estate, principal necessary if in its encroach trust discretion, provide proper support Mina, for death equal go Mina trust was to terminate all the in organizations; following charitable shares institutions St. Orphans’ Altenheim, Home, Lutheran Lutheran Louis Childrens’ Society Missouri, Folks Kirkwood. Old Home at selected these from list for compiled institutions Miss be will Evans. It will May, 1930, noted executed in except no for of her kin provision made Mina, an}*- none of her relatives, parties action, other to this were included. Mina lived the Huthmaker home alone. two-story large, house, of frame thirteen rooms ainwas “run only repairs years condition.” The made

down in recent was a furnace, no wmter, new roof. It had toilet or of any conveniences except lights. electric Water -was .kind carried pump in the yard. supplied by burning Heat was wood stoves. In the winter failing 1930 Mina health and became December ill. The weather bad ailing. herself Some- part December, Hansen, arranged time the latter Dr. for both go the home of their niece Amelia (one ladies Rex of .contestants) city in the of St. Louis. Mrs. Rex had a comfortable

597- conveniences. all modern heat and rooms, with furnace home, nine February 8, 1931, when Rex until home They remained at arranged- home and the Huthmaker returned to Mina, caring for assist in to come there-and a Mrs. Goodloe - home on Goodloe went the housework. March' Mina died May (1931).. stayed 1st until February 9th and during most-of alone -at home Huthmaker lived 15, 1931. Mrs. being, at that her. Mrs. Goodloe describes

the summer housework, her own woman. She did “wiry” time, active, flowers. Her brother Gustav for her eared about lawn and worked $1000, bequeathed contestants), whom she (one Walkenhorst a month” “off twice says home “about he went out to her death some work years” before her and did next on” for “three place. her about Mr. Huth- lot from and Mrs. purchase Flaesche contracted Otto payment” completed 1924. He made the “down maker Huthmaker-made- after Mr. Huthmaker’s death and-Mrs. payments -he; June, 1931, lot. a residence on the In Flaesche built the deed. pur- The prospective sale negotiating property. for the of this was adjoin- upon obtaining Flaesche purchase ah chaser conditioned the negotiations ing conveying the lots. Flaesche entered into two lot lot. asked purchase adjoining to the She with Mrs. Huthmaker countered $700. Flaesche Mrs.-Huthmaker with $1000. offered a less” price a of “not take cent the $800 and said she would July (1931) finally price. sale In consummated at that slight digestive spell, passing a sick a Huthmaker had brief dis- “by eaten,” gen- she something turbance otherwise her caused had nn good. eral health was cash income interest collected- was derived from Huthmaker’s mortgages on real estate and bonds on the notes secured first the aggregating owned, principal matter. about-the Rambo then told Martin that Mrs. Huth- further very wanted, for,” maker “was the anxious Masons to have the a for orphans’ land as site an old folks’ and replied home. Martin that, having “if she why give is interested in it us don’t it us.” thought glad Rambo he said Mrs. Huthmaker would be on do that ¡an annuity some kind of days basis. Within a few Rambo returned happy” .said-Mrs. Huthmaker convey and eighty “would be the they acres of to. the Home land if her a a would build home on tract'.on pay small Avenue annuity $5000, Forrest and her'an of - monthly in installments.-' Rambo stated however that Huth- any not pay arrange- would him commission on maker that kind of an required ment and he look -to the Home for the commission. agreed Martin the matter to the submit board of directors proposition told Rambo that if the accepted completed a pay that the Home recommend commission would on the of basis of The board $80,000 $4000. per a five cent valuation of on Huthmaker’s, & July (1931). of the Home next met directors Huth- the went to of the board offer discussed and the members them showed Mrs. Huthmaker property. maker home to view the house platform atop the property, the took them to observation an the surrounding pointed out area, from which could view the property the boundaries, give her desire to reiterated Following orphans care. its Home the use the in for of old folks Home meeting at the the board of resumed their this visit directors ninety-day into a to enter a committee of number and authorized its Shortly con- thereafter such option with Mrs. contract Huthmaker. the prepared. provided, convey Mrs. Huthmaker tract was It Home; during the remainder eighty acres of land to the Masonic monthly $5000, pay annuity Home in of her life the should be $416.67; That for the installments of the should used Incorporation; purposes the Home as set forth its Articles buildings thereon, estate, that the real erected should be .known designated Memorial” a tablet “Mary and that commemorating gift the as a memorial to Mrs. Huthmaker be placed place premises; at the Mrs. Huthmaker .suitable con- vey Home an containing approximately..three t-raet additional to. reserving therein; a life acres, estate would that the Masonic Home specified tract, time, erect residence on within at cost .a Huthmaker", $5000 exceed of Mrs. use without rental charge, “during remainder”, her life.and that Home every keep.taxes of thereon paid; conveying kind that the deeds contract, real estate executed, escrow;.that when be placed placed be $200 to Home, paid escrow time, at be same accept if the Home did not the terms of the conveyances ninety-days signing within .contract from the óf the contract; accepted and if so upon $200 be applied was to monthly first installment $416.67. July Barly in (1931), Mrs. Huthmaker went to First National Clayton Bank to see Lindeman, Mr. whom we .have heretofore mentioned, and told him deal Masonic pending with the she. land, Home for that she wanted look interests, him to after her her. that a be prepared, contract would and as soon as. received copy contract bring "she would to him for his consideration and advice. Later July, receipt aof draft the contract and the deeds, Mrs. Huthmaker took them Mr. They Lindeman.. the terms generally discussed specifically monthly income provided by contract the income from her bonds and notes gross and what annual income objected be. to the price cost of the residence limited the to $5000 contract saying that would wanted, build the kind of house Mr. Lindeman the St. lawyer department of Barnes, called Mr. in the title thought the' County Barnes Company, Louis into consultation. Trust sufficiently were descriptions deeds land in the contract and descriptions. agreed correct definite and to definite and prepare during July and dis- She called on Mr. Lindeman “several times” Mar- with, July, “privately.” ‘Sometime in cussed the contract him agreed Barnes, and Lindeman', Pluthmaker,, tin met with raised be request that of the residence to Mrs. Huthmaker’s the cost verbiage of changes in the $10,000 $5000 to and certain other the- con- agreed upon. Barnes rewrote tlie contract deeds were inserting land the making tract the deeds these corrections and as re- compiled by of the contract descriptions as The terms him. original except substantially contract written were the same as Mrs, $10,000. price cost was fixed at maximum of residence Huthmaker, Lindeman, Barnes, Bambo and Martin met at August 6, 1931, read, bank on deeds were the contract and requirements” “all the said contained “perfectly satisfied,” they .placed were then in escrow executed gone with have as we think the bank. We into detail in this matter fully the' evidence that Mrs. Huthmaker shows understood comprehended transaction, all the con- details of this which about doing. make ado; testants much and well knew what On she was during September 28, meeting Lodge, the 1931 annual of the Grand acceptance appointed the Home board directors of voted authority" committee carry out- terms of the contract. payment Rambo, $4000 board also authorized the commission to which made. will be It noted that did not twenty-one convey, to, lots, number, eighteen title but retained of which death. On morning owned at time September 29, meeting the Home children of taken they gave place Lodge where Grand short entertainment. Mrs. morning accompanied Huthmaker went to the Home that children, charge, meeting. those this At the conclusion program 'the her, the Grand Master children’s introduced from the Lodge platform, members of Grand and announcéd gift neglected We Home. mention that she previously July visited the Home in and had dinner there. confirming

As comprehended further that Mrs. Huthmaker transaction, and are do, did what desired she made statements during (1931) mostly July to friends at various times while the matter pending. Heising, long standing, friend of visited her home the evening July Huthmaker at They sat on lawn for and chatted sometime. On that occasion Mrs. Huthmaker told £ give Heising my that, going place 11 am to the Masons or order” and that the “Masonic phanage” going “a to build her

601 she During that month lived. long as bungalow” to use as she for her July Late Mr. transaction. in Engle of the the terms told In Huthmaker. long friends, visited neighbors Barlow, deed “about to them she she was told conversation course be made would institution” and that ato charitable her elderly folks Koch, and Mrs. August (1931) Mr. In public soon. visiting twenty-five years, were for neighbors to Mrs. ‘! give farm thought going she to her she She them her. told home a building children’s purpose order for to the Masonic care of her a take her house and build the Masons would that ’’ about a Miehelson, neighbor, long lived. She told as as she Home.” the Masonic giving her land to “she was August, that first provided Home Masonic that Though the contract with new resi- the old home until the should have the use of completed she her decided late to build for dence W'as get could like she September (1931) that she would to board until board Rambo wife Into her home. She if would new asked agreed They paying so she to home her. to do went their agreed monthly sum room meals. early to bank part

In the of October Mrs. Huthmaker went will, to see a that making Mr. Lindeman wanted about and told she Mississippi Valley a. Company “she had will at Trust but she one.” to make a new He took to Mr. cancel that and wanted Barnes, lawyer mentioned, heretofore connected with the trust' company building, Barnes, in the same told Huthmaker- “Mrs. ” making like talk him her will. about Barnes asked her .just If she had what she wanted” she “memorandum of and had “just dispose she property.” decided how wanted She Teplied: altogether” “Well, she would “come over later. (1931), conveyed

On October 10 Mrs. Huthmaker sold and two of Knickmeyer grandnephew, wife, lots Earl and his' aat grantees price purchase $1400. price executed notes for payable monthly secured installments and first deed trust. Engel As prepared the various usual and took instruments acknowledgments. these Such of notes as unpaid remained were in- in the estate. cluded (1931), Mrs. On October 15 Huthmaker went to Mississippi

Valley Company, Trust withdrew the will she had executed and de destroyed May, posited 1930, and there in it. On (1931), October to Barnes’ office him went and told-him she fix up “wanted will.” had memorandum of She beneficiaries- intended “what she wanted do.” Barnes surrounding relates facts will, which preparation contest, is the instrument got my “I information for the will follows: from the memorandum 602' if I she had with her and the ashed her conversation with her. said, descendants, ‘No.’ children or direct rough designated. I made nephew' mentioned brother and any my stenographer copy.

draft for I there asked her if forgotten put thing that she she had overlooked or of whether memory anything probably I tested should- not and "might anyone. just general if have was possibly she overlooked It (cid:127) objects me conversation between and her relative to her n bounty and those who be for tell should cared her. did'not (in will) only me that threer relatives mentioned were the ‘I that she had. think she she had other relatives these said but provide all she were for. The then in eared will was' written her,” final form. Barnes “read it she over declared it was satis factory Lindeman, and Barnes then to be a witness called asked him bring that'capacity. Qualified and to person another act Linde Eble, bank, acquainted man and been Edward cashier of the who had years with Mrs. Huthmaker' seven and theretofore fre had quent banking responded her, request. transactions with to Barnes’ says questions response propounded Barnes he certain to which Lindeman Huthmaker declared to Eble the instrument and that her “last requested sign will and testament” and them to Thereupon signed witnesses. pres Mrs. Huthmaker the will in the signed ence of the witnesses and Lindeman and Eble witnesses her presence presence Mr. and of each other. Eble then returned office and asked read Lindeman to the will. says Lindeman will,” Huthmaker “read the then together presence “went over it in the Barnes”'and Mr. that she “perfectly declared satisfied.” Eble stated: “Based my acquaintance prior to, day on all with her and on the when both signed instrument, my opinion is that her mind was' absolutely acquaintance sound.” Lindeman said: “Based on an years, than more fifteen the business I had transactions with her conversations, including my day conversation with her on that my day, of her that I observation am satisfied when she signed the she was instrument of sound mind.” testified Barnes that, her, my “from- conversations with observation of her. demeanor . . . . conduct . what she . said' did on the her, when in my opinion occasions I saw her mental condition was of the best. -She knew she wanted what relation will of her estate.” realized condition employed October

In the architect Home pre- 'Masonic -supervise of the building brick pare plans residencé for Mrs. Rambo called on at the home. He pre- submitted liminary requested suggestions, made several sketches changes" larger, as to size made of other rooms, bedroom- be etc.

6.03 during were after several' conferences with Sketches revised and The form. in final put plans November and December the modern all house with attractive, roomy, residence was to be an cooling system. including air conveniences an (1931). following December occurred home' between six at the

regularly appeared for breakfast Rambo appear the custom- six-thirty. morning not On that she did fully dressed, ary room, Rambo found her time. Mr. went to spoke edge He bed, apparently “in daze.” sitting of the on the understand. response'. she made no not to hear or to her but Seemed moments, Westrup. However, Dr. within few The Rambos called recovered from fully revived and seemed when the arrived sitting “daze.” in a doctor “within She was chair say stated, Dr. Westrup a half after the call.” “I not hour would apoplectic stroke. There disturbance paralytic or a possibly due to circulation, of the cerebral arteriosclerosis hardening arteries” would “I think there because she have so bursting vessel, blood recovered quickly.” invited, been to planned, Mrs. Huthmaker had and had go-to (one Flynn contestants, the home a niece Mrs. Irene gives $1000) will St. for to remain Louis Christmas and just day following there for awhile thereafter.' The the incident Flynn’s she to home mentioned went Mrs. and remained there until- spring with the advent and lure of back in to April, she went whom, farm to Home family old house board . . . with n placed residence, there caretakers until her new then in as ready construction, occupancy. course of for the writer was As none of the recalls or by incidents circumstances related Mr. or Mrs.

Flynn, contestants, tending witnesses for to as show are to have during unsound mind said priod occurred 20, 1931, December April, 1932, Flynn she was at the home. February

On 12 (1932), Mrs. Huthmaker met the architect and general contractor at the new site of the residence. The architect general contractor out the laid for the foundation. Mrs. lines space Huthmaker was interested in the lawn discovering require house lines front cutting would down of beau tree, tiful shade planted years which she many before, she re quested the house be located further to the in order to south save the- tree and that done. Construction was commenced shortly thereafter. She the house weekly visited three or four times general architect, consulted with the contractor and subcontrac These men she took intelligent testified that an active tors. in Sunday go terest work. On in the she would with friends and show point

them the house arrange about out she where intended very continued frequent visits These gardens, etc. her- flower vigor alertness physical Her day she stricken. before everywhere the build about “she went by the fact that illustrated laid “subfloor” Before the construction. ing” while it was in joists” and eight” by “laid across “one boards she over walked 14 feet plank, a “2 x 10 building over into the she went unassisted n in-length” one the other ground and rested on the of which end ex ground. She above the one-half feet -doorway three and type color costly a more preference for and different pressed contract. specified plans mortar than that of brick and agreed the additional pay her wish and The Home acceded shingles for the roof. specified black plans The slate (cid:127)cost. shingles green” preference for “ocean expressed a request costly. granted agreeing The Home more which-were brick, said 'her pay the additional cost. contractors selections were, appearance shingles good taste and and' mortar added We personally the electrical fixtures. of the house. selected treated evidence, be which must have noted these shown details uneontradicted, very day she was tending to show that intelligent com active, maintained Huthmaker- stricken understanding affairs. petent interest of her in and - pending 16, 1932, deal April On Huthmaker closed check for one of her lots. Nicholson delivered William Nicholson time the deed. At delivered $2000 and executed and down near Nicholson “.another lot told her- was 'interested live” take where the asked her would Evans ladies ‘/what the matter him know” for it.”- would consider and “let said .she .She price week -a did $1800' later. In about a she made- him but “he buy.” that, that time Huthmaker .stated at “she did not; if give care sell whether she sold it did not to Masons. it. Sunday, May (1932), 1 On Mrs. Huthmaker showed friends about vigorous day her new house. She seemed and well. On the same the home of the Evans. On next morning,-May the (cid:127)she.visited Misses (1932),’at 2 the seven-thirty, as left their home Misses Evans about to-go yard work Mrs. Huthmaker the their in of her home .to was old ’ day- waved to them. Later that she a .and stroke of suffered “ ’’ hemorrhage, apoplexy, cerebral her a. rendered uncom which hospital to a taken in where scious. -She St. Louis she remained was totally continuously'unconscious the date of her death, June ' - n 18, . charge testamentary are contestants. To the

There sustain t.en incapacity produced .witnesses, contestants five sixteen of whom are two contestants, contestants, contestants, two children of husbands contestants, who were lay one four witnesses related doctor

605 opinion, gave Mrs. Huthmaker but one time treated at no who had gave Mrs. never Huthmaker but doctors, who had known two embracing hypothetical a experts, question based opinion, an is Contestants’ case testimony other witnesses. of contestants’ are we therefore confined proponents’ evidence and aided in part alone of contestants evidence on examination support evidence to there substantial determining whether (cid:127) (cid:127) incapacity. charge testamentary contestants, testi- Walkenhorst, nephew, and a one Chester leg. hospital release from the Upon in he a broken fied that recuperate; farm to that he went to rest "spells food;” "very stingy with her that she had aunt was temper thought I temper” "whenever she lost her she working lawn, crazy;” about that had observed which fallen picking up twigs sticks, and- small dead move placing piles by and then trees, and them tree she them place place got them from "until where she' wanted she ” habit, em- significance contestants would attach to this Any them. witness, brother, Mrs. phasized another contestant Huthmaker’s appears when she would move piles that these small fades carry twigs pile into- collect them in one and then branches large kitchen, them a at place basket the side cook stove- them for fuel. and use Rex, contestant, St. Mrs. Mrs. niece at home in Louis whose (cid:127) stayed December, 1930, Mina from sometime in

Huthmaker and February, Mina ill until when and Mrs. Huthmaker ‘‘ during that on one occasion Huth- ailing, stated time Mrs. that my (when maker ate dinner "went out son and told stated) dinner;” long how after dinner not that had not had religion;” "quite no Mrs. Huthmaker "had that few that times cause;” rage apparent Rex) (Mrs. she flew into without directed Mrs. Mina occasion Huthmaker and in another one sit contestants) (a maid Mrs. Aubuchon, while room witness for complain room heard cleaned their to- bathroom; Mrs. Rex had her in the locked maid that and that dinner, occasion, eating potato while "some on one dumplings” good.” are very said "these carrots Rex Aubuchon, home, in the maid next witness ‘‘ Huthmaker saying for contestants. told They to her: bathroom while my me locked cleaned room.” wit- This was "an said, awful ness curious’woman . . . take anything my me ‘You would not asked room,- would ’ ” Huthmaker, while at the Rex you; home would hide change hiding place "one pocketbook time while eating meal, went to closet took pocketbook she was her out back, was put it that I and first time opened it and noticed she (1930), morning shortly Christmas funny;” after that, one saw home, she Rex yet in the tree while the decorated Christmas tree, piece oif Christmas some decorative Huthmaker take Mrs. talking it; Huthmaker step to the floor on that Mrs. throw it and only she understood word to herself at time but magazines and kept a of “lot “money;” .that (Mrs. Rex told her room home and newspapers” her could Aubuehon) and that out farm that she cut advertisements could money again” and that she make “buy land sell it and get nobody would money with her have her bonds buried “bathing it; pictures that cut some Aubuehon). (Mrs. magazines, them her from showed beauties” ‘‘ is displaying said, partly leg that then lifted her dress ’’ shapely leg, bathing woman use suits. that is the kind of Flynn, contestant, bequeathed $1000 and a niece family will, saw never Mrs. Huthmaker until 1928. and her subsequent During in St. Louis. the summer 1928 and resided Flynn periods family frequent Huth- made summer visits outings picnics. Flynn home saw said, maker on that 1929; that nothing unusual about her in 1928 or aunt’s conduct December, 1930, stayed when Mina was ill in at the Huthmaker. morning days; home prepared breakfast; two one anything that Mrs. “she cup Huthmaker said didn’t want but coffee;” eggs”, myself that “I pieces, fixed toast and several thre.e n placed them seated; on the table at which Mrs. Huthmaker was took eggs that Mrs. Huthmaker some plate on toast myself ate them and “I fix some more.” Dorothy Flynn, eighteen year daughter Flynn old of Mrs. testified,, that while Mrs. Flynn Huthmaker was home, in the 20, 1931, April,' elderly gentleman, a Mr. December Angel, called on Mrs. Huthmaker several times, took her auto- mobile once on show occasion told Mrs. “she ought rouge put some on bought later she rouge; some time just at another Christmas, 1931, Angel before Mr. “kissed cheeks” he in; both came when that while Mrs. Huthmaker was Flynn in the home a lot, “she sewed that is all she about did,” and early.” “she went bed theOn facts gave stated it as witness opinion that Mrs. Huthmaker was' unsound mind when she -will. made‘the testimony John Durning, husband of Evangeline contestant niece, Durning, who . did not herself testify, so lacking probative value only notice we ..being slight illustrative of evidence, in the mentioned, incidents from which contestants have draw inferences. us farfétehed Durning seen from 1917 until the summer of .Huthmaker 1930. He says

-607 would she in conversation home that that summer and was at subject another talk about talking on one leave that'and “start n n ’’ feed chickens went out to -one; once Mrs. Huthmaker that a barrel in the corner accompanied 'there her; and he that was in the a little chicken which feed implement a house .had small into house she bottom-; he the door .while went that stood at bump” was and asked her barrel; he “a what that heard barrel; he a in the went she there that- matter and said was rat any hole barrel, it, see a over to the shook and “didn’t rat or .the says-he funeral, March, 1931, He barrel.” attended Mina’s a him if he think Mina like Mrs. Huthmaker didn’t looked asked - year .girl.- old sixteen Dr. he Hansen known Mrs. Huthmaker-for testified that times; fourteen -her-at “she years, had-treated and that twelve evidently healthy been a woman” not inclined to heed ;his advice as much that she had call should;- as she “what we .and hardening arteries, the. I “every arteriosclerosis.” He one said opinion-as off have at times” has been had no worked n (cid:127)- Mrs. Huthmaker’s mental-condition. Goodloe, employed

Mrs. during.-Mina’s whom Mrs. Huthmaker stayed last and who illness at the Huthmaker home February 1931, gave May 1, opinion that Mrs. Huthmaker was of an un- on October.20, sound when she mind thereafter made the Her will. opinion testimony; based these matters detailed in .dirty” “very there; that the house she when went housekeeper,” “wasn’t a “she peculiar,’.’ “she Huthmaker things;” me have run of wouldn’t let full that “she let would not lights,” ceiling light burn two light, me. floor at- the same time; religion often discussed with Mrs. Huthmaker and said, “she not believe in-God; day did that one big caterpillar a tractor, “big a digging monstrous machine” started land; across Huthmaker’s Huthmaker was “mad” they because and “excited came on her land permission” without down talked” to the charge and “went men in they agreed permit that if she would them continue across land would later, pay a therefor; $10 sent her check (the wit- very think ness) “didn’t it was nice of woman who had as much n money charge had” for the-tractor land; crossing machine that while Mrs. Huthmaker “would buy enough to table” supply the she would not (Mrs. let her Good- loe) thought cook necessary; much as she and that along in April, got warm,” “when the weather Mrs. put meat hang in the bucket and bucket cistern and sometimes, left “you long meat there so could not cook it more.” Though the opinion .gave as above witness noted stated on cross-examina- positively her own mind of

tion that Huthmaker “had to do her mind up made doing and when she knew she was what good deal doing after pretty she eame near to it. went thing ' ” always; neigh- who had lived testimony Pallady said Pearl Miss toas years inconsequental twenty, is so bor to Mrs. Huthmaker for n contribute “was value; that Mrs. nothing probative coat, a because she in man’s clean;” “queer that she dressed not Mrs. shoes;’-’ “fly developed off.” that and-she would It hat a perhaps wore a sweater coat and frequently Huthmaker man’s witnesses conclusion working man’s when outdoors. This 'hat mind always of unsound such was that “was facts to a certain extent.” - Huthmaker,. spinster Mary a sister of Mrs. Huthmaker’s Lizzie husband, produced contestants 'deceased as a witness. opinion that in her mind stated Mrs. Huthmaker was of- unsound attending not Mrs. Huthmaker since Mina’s since She had seen clearly funeral, March, 1931. The witness in St. Louis. lived It knowledge appears no intimate that had of Mrs. Huthmaker or opinion following: wholly-upon her-affairs. Her was based- that in 1929 her;” Mrs. Huthmaker was ill and went-“out to see that when into the she went room where Mrs. Huthmaker con- “you bed, fined said, were here yesterday” but day before; she had not been there the (the witness) that she then asked Huthmaker if she a had had doctor said a'doctor had been to see her he “high said she a had fever” you and added: “Do know he what said me? He said, ‘we are getting I him, old’ young told ‘I am as anybody, I can out- ” here;’ work of the women around that at Mina’s funeral Mrs. good remarked her: “It’s thing Mina died .before I because Mina part did could not take her in the world, I’can, I am fighter.” contesting brother Gustav (bequeathed Walkenhorst $1000) he testified that worked at the Huthmaker' home “off and on” for -years,-preceding death, three month; “was out' there about twice a ’’ - at some time that not he stated built fence for Mrs. Huthmaker and that after it was finished wanted it torn down, why stated, but he so; is .not not do did he that had heard her ham- against mer sill, night, window at with a piece of board after gone he bed, had whether more occurred than once and the occasion for action stated; is not that she did ample serve meals, stingy food; about gone that he had to her home, yard, upon would be-in the approach she went into the house and' locked door but after time short came out of the house recognized him. .Whether this awas frequent occurrence or a surrounding circumstances instance and single isolated conjectural vague testimony too is this item of being stated face On make. its inference contestants warrant kind recognize him as nothing she did not more than it shows approached. Huth- contestant,-saw Mrs. Knickmeyer, niece and Julia stated after Miria’s death. She once' infrequently and but maker con- engaged in while noticed that 1929 she at times that after she had change subject; Mrs. Huthmaker would versation Mrs. Huth- her farm about Huthmaker. walked unfastening fastening of been about the maker confused be- it; seen about that she had gate, “fuss:” certain and would thought occasion very no angry when the witness there was come anger; funeral outburst of the witness attended for.an Mina’s standing casket, near the remarked Huthmaker, and Mrs. while deceased) my daugh- (the nice, looks she? She “she doesn’t her, is inexplicable ter. last ascribed Mrs. Huthmaker is This statement light lay of contestants’ own Most of in the evidence. contestants’ person this funeral. No present witnesses other such heard reasonably in- a remark there no evidence susceptible' that, time, any Mrs. that Huthmaker un- at acted terpretation lapse any manner a mental indicated, usual or that was nor kind thing any relate other does this witness circumstance or other appearance or done or said about Mrs. Huthmaker’s' indicating lapse. However the remark, mental witness understood the in view relationship existing long period "of over a years, the we have as related, heretofore is it more not assume reasonable Mrs. that' said, my daughter” “She daughter like Huthmaker is or “she is like ’’ n tome. Mrs. Huthmaker arrangements made all for the funeral clergyman the undertaker the Lutheran and who conducted' funeral, who had conducted her funeral, husband’s for testified (cid:127) , proponents. Flynn, Edward husband of Flynn, William Irene contestant that on with his wife to Mrs. testified visits Huthmaker’s home he change had noticed that would sometimes the sub- engaged ject while conversation and that of her in conversation he get up from her chair seen her “as if she were going some- room, walk about the where, and then resume chair, continuing during the time. He the conversation stated that on one occasion “I a Prussian, am Huthmaker- said: I Mrs. am going-to be a too;” Masons, that he to.the asked her Prussian what meant ‘ Í German; is Red Cross in replied: That that is I what will be Apparently Masons.” witness’s memory with of the pur- vague a garbled is resulted in ported statement version. It that Huthmaker be remembered was must educated limited. expression mode somewhat woman that -her thought aid endeavoring convey that Evidently she was spirit was in fraternity of the Masonic to the charitable work to- spirit her attitude or that such characterized Red Cross the Masons. ward .foregoing of certain of testimony have We consolidated Mina toward concerning of Mrs. Huthmaker the attitude witnesses period during Mina first the time was ill. The relate incidents the Rex Mina Huthmaker were at of several that and Mrs. weeks during one occasion that Walkenhorst on home. Chester stated-that period he Rex home and Mina’s illness Mrs. mentioned visited “shook” who was Mina, Huthmaker said, on.” Mrs. asleep, only putting “she Rex said upon eating hungry Mina Huthmaker insisted when Mina just when Mina and even at times finished meal. who, home, Aubuchon, have at the Rex we mentioned -worked Mrs.- n that, see testified that anything told- her “she didn’t wrong nothing was the matter with Mina that there just either, putting somebody Mrs. Rex on and wanted .waiting her.” The witness said Mrs. Rex was- time “poor health.” Mrs. testified, Aubuchon further that Mrs. ‘‘ trying Mina walk; Huthmaker insisted would on the back pound with her fists.” On examination Mina further explained by this'last statement was the witness. Mrs. Huthmaker time; digestive some times, insisted at that Mina take a It tablet. difficulty Mina had in swallowing seems “choked,” tablet and thereupon her, Huthmaker “pounded on the back” wit- Apparently it. ness stated did' thing the witness same relating how Mrs. taking digestive on Mina insisted these tablets, (whether prescribed by the attending physician does not appear, presumably so) and difficulty them, Mina’s swallowing says “Mina witness would choke and we have to raise her up pound give her on the back water.” Mrs. Goodloe during said that Mina’s illness at the. Huthmaker home she heard sick, Mina Huthmaker tell Mrs.. Westrup wasn’t Dr. that when Mina very said “was sick’’’ wanted send her to a -hear, Huthmaker hospital Mrs. said she having “would of -not Mina hospital.” a sent to witnesses, -The Chester Walkenhorst, Rex, Mrs. Aubuchon, Flynn Walkenhorst, and Gustav that'they-had testified heard herself,’.’ “talk Mrs,Huthmaker “mumbling to herself,” but she in a tone spoke low not did understand what saying she was reply times. In .to a question at such hypothesizing the testimony foregoing Deppe of witnesses Drs. Barnes, qualified having mind. of unsound Huthmaker opinions gave experts, as Mrs. Huthmaker. or ever -seen had known Neither evidence weight of the naught to with inquiry do has While this to note interesting countervailing evidence it is proponents’ or Huthmaker. neighbors Mrs. eighteen of proponents as had witnesses had adjoined land, several many them of The homes -Mrs. Huthmaker or the Huthmakers home purchased their site neighbors Mrs. Huth- known had These death. after her husband’s from seven periods time, long intimately well maker other citizens witnesses twelve Proponents also had as years. forty transactions who had business Kirkwood, officials, business men com- high standing in the women her, others, with all men acquainted None with been well munity, had Huthmaker. who peculiarities any of witnesses had noted of these disinterested On con- their witnesses. by related or contestants traits good vigorous active, physically, of trary they said she was an woman capable woman, and good shrewd, a a disposition, business neighbor, with one accord declared her of sound mind. attitude Mrs.-

We first consider toward during evidence, illness, sister Mina’s shown contestants’ during, strong, a woman. healthy had herself been Even slight- years very of her life she little illness, last had two or three very experience of short duration. little attacks sick people. mistakenly She may sincerely have but believed telling sister ill, may Mina or in that she not sick she seeking thought have been influence her implanting that to, with Mina .striving belief recovery, that it would tend aid .the. thought to effectuate the teaching. which well known In vitalizes insisting Mina try more eat and that she to walk about the house it was doubtless Mrs. idea, uncommon, Huthmaker’s Mina thereby gain strength. Placing the normal most and reason able construction phase this of the evidence it does not tend to show a disordered mind testamentary and lack of incapacity when she made will. if the interpreted But evidence be showing under, laboring that Mrs. Huthmaker was delusion that her sister feigning illness, such delusion no way affected contested seven will made months after Mina’s death. “The -delusion which incapable makes testator making a will, must be delusion as affecting some necessarily matter involved the.making of a will.” v. Mercantile Co., Trust 332 Mo. 815, 59 [Hall S. W. (2d) 664, 669.] enough “A testator with .mind to understand,” ordinary life, affairs of the kind extent of his property, who are objects bounty, natural his that he is giving his persons will, mentioned in the manner therein- státed, is

612' of law this State. a will making under capable [Sanford of there 821, 818, and eases 469, 207 S. W. 457, Holland, 276 Mo. v. elements the essential constitute foregoing may said to b.e cited.] expression are though of modes testamentary capacity different of 259, 248, Hammerstein, 272 Mo. v. decisions. found in our [Hahn 523, S. Anderson, 236 Mo. 139 v. In Turner 833, 198 W. S. 836.] who know the testator and understand requirement 180,W. amplified adding that bounty objects of his are the natural “their deserts know understand capacity have the he also capacity him, of their treatment their conduct and with reference to however,” intended, have been hardly necessities.” could “It because, its permit jury to set aside language, “to will this- properly appreciate gauge. the testator opinion, the did not range capacities certain relatives within deserts, necessities of Mercantile descent and distribution.” v. statutes of [Hall Co., 815, (2d) 664, 802, 332 Mo. 59 S. W. Trust 669.] In all evidence there no evidence of substance mass of incapable transacting of her busi ordinary that Mrs. Huthmaker was fully comprehend nature, did ness affairs or that she know and value or who were extent and of her that she not know did and all of these' collateral relatives. Many of the circumstances shown inconsequential in contestants’ evidence so slight and that com are point required light is not ment out viewed of common experience they probative have no value tending whatever show testamentary incapacity. personal Nor is the evidence mere of peculiarities, habit, eccentricities that “she oddities dress times, confused, talked to herself” at momentarily became occasion on changed mind, sometimes in some instances shifted course of conversation, few momentarily failed occasions mentioned recognize person some whom acquainted, was well or the type evidence, other which, allowed implications, at its fullest most, portray tends to Mrs. Huthmaker as lack stubborn, suspicious, ing relatives, stingy, affection for her exhibiting and as sometimes quick explosive á temper, any probative vdlue to show testa it,is incapacity mentary when, here, accompanied by “proof of acts” showing facts not, Huthmaker was at the time will, capable she executed this of understanding the ordinary affairs life, transacting her ordinary business, understanding the nature, extent and value of her property who were the natural objects bounty. [Sayre v. Trustees Princeton University, 787; 95, 192 90 S. v. Grier, Mo. W. Winn 217 420, Mo. 117 W. S. 48; Gibony Foster, 106, 230 Mo. 116, v. 130 S. 314, W. 317; Smarr Smarr, 1153, 1168, 319 6 (2d) v. Mo. S. W. 860, 865; Fulbright v. County, 955; 46 Perry Mo. W. S. Berkemeier v. Reller, 739; 614, 296 S. W. 317 Mo. Hahn v. Hammerstein, 272 Mo. 248,

613 W. 56 S. 131, Starke, 332 Mo. v. 836; 833, Loehr W. 198 S. 259, W. 105 S. 1228, 340 banc), Mo. (en v. Greenhall 772; Frank (2d) experts based two of-the opinions It follows (2d) 929.] detailed con circumstances upon facts and alone wholly and of testa evidence constitute substantial not do evidence testants’ supra; Trust Co., Berke Mercantile v. mentary incapacity. [Hall supra; v. Grier, Archambault Winn v. Reller, supra; v. meier Greenhall, supra.] Frank v. 834; 384, 95 S. W. Blanchard, 198 Mo. evidence shows that the uñcontradieted out pointed we have As active was in fatal very stroke day of to the ordinary on the intelligently carried with, understood touch managed her thoroughly conversant with and life, was affairs upon affairs, this and business interests, property investments knew who her relatives be there can doubt record no the will.’ under giving her to how and whom Sayre v. Princeton upon reading of Trustees of We think that Smarr, Reller, Smarr v. Grier, v. v. Berkemeier University, Winn appear that Starke, supra, will those cases citations, it Loehr v. testamentary tending to show presented facts and circumstances as strong, cases, those court stronger, yet, in incapacity if not to contestants no evidence which entitled there was substantial held issue, jury. Following the authorities have that submitted tending is no evidence show we there substantial cited hold that time Mrs. Huthmaker executed testamentary incapacity at the jury. submitted, been and that issue should not have will, alleged contest, to the other under influence ground As servants, representatives” by agents, to have been exercised “the issue, of the Home. ask to Masonic Contestants have this did not by jury. proof petition, made their submitted The burdén allegation upon True, of this is undue influence need contestants. direct, proven by, may be evidence but be shown or inferred from, (Webster v. Lei and circumstances evidence facts man, 1232,.44 328 W. be (2d) 40) Mo. but there more shown S. must suspicion.” than “mere to influence” or “mere oportunity [Tecken McLaughlin, v. No 533) brock 209 Mo. re fiduciary W. 108.S. 46.] agents any lation between Mrs. officers, Huthmaker and of the by any of the Plome made if, servants But Masonic is out. sort deduction, sufficiently it be considered that the evidence show does give presump such such alone rise relationship fact or inference through tion that the execution the will procured (en the exercise influence. 332 undue v. Starke banc), [Loehr (2d) 772; 131, Mo. 56 S. W. Chapman, v. Mo. Pulitzer 337 315, 85 (2d) 400, fiduciary W. showing S. In addition to 409.] gift fiduciary relation beneficiary will there be fairly must further circumstances facts and from which it can be reasonably fiduciary beneficiary ac- inferred or that the found

tively making upon exercised undue influence the testator unnecessary length, We deem it this matter discuss will.. enough say is that the claim that such influence shown undue rests conjecture, veriest inferences and forced and strained is not, opinion, supported our by substantial evidence.

The May, 1930, will of before Mrs. Huthmaker con Home, tact with the completely, Masonic of£ all these cut relatives Flynn Walkeiihorst Irene along others. with the Ghistav provisions of part this contested will are -set out at the first of this opinion. By reference" thereto by it is obvious that the will Mrs. sought to make effective the intent, evidenced" her will May, 1930, that her property ultimately go a charitable should institution dedicated the care orphan children, of old folks and that the satisfactory Masonic respect. Home was" to her in that It is our conclusion there was no issue jury for the on either testamentary incapacity influence,' grounds or undue of contest álleged, proponents and that to a entitled verdict directed sustaining the will. Therefore judgment trial is court reversed, and the cause is remanded a judg- direction that ment be establishing entered paper writing contested last as the will Mary and'testament of Huthmaker. It is ordered. Hyde so Bradley, CC., concur. opinion C., foregoing PER CURIAM: The Ferguson, judges opinion concur, except adopted as the court. All J., voting because a member of the when cause Douglas, .not court was submitted".. Employers’ Liability Corpor Soukup

William v. The Assurance England, Corporation, London, a Garnishee tion, Ltd., Battery Doing as Scott Business Ford, Company, Ford Scott (2d) S. Appellant. 86. W. Banc, July en Court notes mortgages $6390; estate, on real coupons, cured first Bonds and $9960; $7699; eighteen separate Cash, parcels estate, real $1540, at various from. appraised aggregating $300 values $14,330. Debts, any, comparatively if It apparent small. is jurisdiction appeal. we have of the Proponents made a facie prima case of due formal execution of the will that at the time Huthmaker possessed requisite testamentary capacity and was mind. sound. . Contestants then evidence upon which offered relied sustain grounds the two alleged which of contest followed further evidence part proponents. the close of At all evidence proponents, there was no contending that substantial evidence to sustain either ground contest, timely proper and' in requested form the trial to.give peremptory jury instruction court them, find for grounds, will, to establish the on both which the trial court action of do. This trial court here refused assigned the.

Notes

notes etc. bank this (cid:127) real, bought notes secured first estate and con deeds trust Mr. sulted with about Well Lindeman such investments .other Frequent investments. reference is in the found evidence that, times, fact at all maintained an interest active and lively in local real estate transactions and well informed as real estate values. No indication appears in the evidence the real estate from time purchased notes she time to were amply not well and any secured or that made reckless or doubtful investments. It be cannot doubted that she understood affairs kept her'business digress well in hand. We here observe that contestants did person produce any whom with Mrs. Huthmaker had business transactions, who anything or knew her affairs,- about business give opinion an that she'was .of unsound mind or lacking capacity n manage property. her contrary On the persons numerous whom transactions, she had business who or were consulted -and were familiar affairs, testified, with her' on the part proponents, that she was a shrewd, capable, woman business of sound businéss judgment. given was not to visiting relatives, parties now action, seemed have little in, interest Though for, or affection them. Mrs. Huthmaker came of a Lutheran family and in been childhood had confirmed in -that faith, she did not, time the evidence herein up takes the course life, attend church religious manifest an interest any organiza tion, directly so and, appears, far as was not until she made May, 1930, first in will that she evidenced interest char organization. sisters, itable Two the Misses Hazel and Helen Evans, across This lot was bought a from the Huthmakers lot purchasing after home and from the Huthmaker Forrest Avenue on this residence their until the Huthmaker home lived at lot Louis. employed in St. constructed. The Evans ladies lot was

which she the of notes such and bonds approximately $16,000, lot and cash from-the 'occasional received deriving no sales. She income 80 of whatever acres farm land. The total annual taxes alone in excess this land During 1930 1931 she to friends, $600. stated at various dispose times, different that she like to would this farm land convenient,” “move where more deriving it was that she was in- no getting higher come from the farm land “the were taxes higher,” “eating into income” from her income producing a 'investments. Illustrative of her attitude is 1931 conversation in mayor Kinyon, acquaintance Mr. Kirkwood, with the then whose n forty years. over a period They discussing with her extended were holdings. “quite her real estate She said a place there but Kinyon pay income from to there wasn’t sufficient it the taxes.” asked ‘ ‘ ’’ farm; why get some to come and live did relatives on except have there” no replied She that “she had relatives cared one Knickmeyer (given a legacy $3000 grandnephew, Bari particularly been proponents) of have of the whom she seems ‘‘ and employed city family a fond. said he was in trip daily he a him and make burden to come there city. placed sale back and September, 1930, forth to the In Mississippi Valley farm land, contract, of the with Trust under Rambo a estate Company October, 1930, in real St. Louis’. In L. T. hearing agent Huthmaker,’ in desired sell' Kirkwood agency negoti- property seeking to handle it. She went to see her arrangement Rambo, prior him of with trust ated told release, company company, finally went and obtained a trust placed then with Rambo. By fra- Louis, 1930 the Masonic Home maintained in St. orphan folks, homeless ternity as home for children and old approximately home for capacity providing crowded in 500 such Lodge September persons. meeting year At the Grand in of that constructing buildings plans tentative either additions ¡outside securing Louis or a site near St. were St. but Louis contemplated Home discussed. information the Masonic real possible-acquisition of tract of land near St. Louis came agents. A estate number of were various tracts submitted but for reasons, price or other none ac- conditions, either location or ceptable. calling Martin, commenced on Mr. president Rambo seeking Home, February, 1931, Masonic the Home interest though Martin the Huthmaker- land and him told from the first price on account other Home- asked and considerations land, was not Rambo interested in Martin’s calling continued' Finally “positively” office. Rambo June Martin told the Home not consider requested could the land and him Rambo not to call on

Case Details

Case Name: Rex v. Masonic Home

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Jul 30, 1937

Citation: 108 S.W.2d 72

Court Abbreviation: Mo.