Hayden's Executors v. Marmaduke

19 Mo. 403
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 19 Mo. 403 (Hayden's Executors v. Marmaduke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hayden's Executors v. Marmaduke, 19 Mo. 403 (Mo. 1854).

Opinion

Gamble, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case, executors who have in their hands a fund claimed by different persons, come into court asking the direction of the court as to the disposition to be made of it, in order that they may be protected by the decree of the court. The fund itself has been produced by means not in the contemplation of the testator. The court, on its motion, dismissed the case upon the hearing, without any cause appearing for such proceeding.

1. If the reason for such dismissal was the want of jurisdiction, the reason was fallacious. Any trustee placed in circumstances in which he may have reasonable doubt as to the proper disposition of the funds in his hands, has a right, for his own safety, to apply to a court of equity for directions, making the persons interested parties to the proceeding. Talbot v. Earl of Radnor, 3 Mylne & Keen, 252. Curtis v. Candler, 6 Mad. 123. Lewin on Trusts, 318.

[404]*4042. If the case was dismissed because the Circuit Court thought there were not all the parties in the suit who should have been brought in, this was improper, because, under section 10, article 3 of the code, the court had the power to order that any other persons necessary to be made parties, in order to a complete determination of the controversy, should be made parties.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded, to be proceeded with.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Sartorius
164 S.W.2d 356 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1942)
State Ex Rel. Ely v. Bandall
299 S.W. 155 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1927)
Novinger Bank v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
189 S.W. 826 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1917)
Williamson v. Grider
135 S.W. 361 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Little v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
94 S.W. 890 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Kansas City v. Bacon
48 S.W. 860 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Sampson v. Mitchell
28 S.W. 768 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
McLeod v. Snyder
19 S.W. 494 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Hilton v. City of St. Louis
99 Mo. 199 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1889)
O'Fallon v. Clopton
89 Mo. 284 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1886)
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Anthony
73 Mo. 431 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)
Butler v. Lawson
72 Mo. 227 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1880)
Harkness v. Julian
53 Mo. 238 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Mo. 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haydens-executors-v-marmaduke-mo-1854.