Mauthe Ex Rel. Wood v. Breckenridge

284 S.W. 145, 219 Mo. App. 694, 1926 Mo. App. LEXIS 30
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 1, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 S.W. 145 (Mauthe Ex Rel. Wood v. Breckenridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mauthe Ex Rel. Wood v. Breckenridge, 284 S.W. 145, 219 Mo. App. 694, 1926 Mo. App. LEXIS 30 (Mo. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinions

* Corpus Juris-Cyc. References: Appeal and Error, 3 C.J., p. 696, n. 61. Costs, 15 C.J., p. 28, n. 88. Executors and Administrators, 24 C.J., p. 936, n. 96 New. Partition, 30 Cyc., p. 296, n. 74. Wills, 40 Cyc., p. 1833, n. 24. This suit as originally brought was a suit for the partition of the following described real estate situate in Franklin County, Missouri, to-wit: The east half of lot 34 of the original town of Franklin, now city of Pacific, lots 1 and 2 in block 3 of Mauthe's Subdivision to the city of Pacific, and lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in block 17 of Mauthe's Subdivision to the city of Pacific. It so happens that the plaintiff John Mauthe is executor of the last will of Minnie Mauthe, deceased, though he did not sue in that capacity, and the case in its progress took such shape that the only controversy involved relates to personalty in charge of John Mauthe as such executor. There was, however, no objection in the court below to the ingraftment of this controversy upon the partition suit.

The petition alleges that, in 1902, William Mauthe died intestate, seized in fee simple of the real estate above described, and left surviving him as his only heirs at law, his widow, Susanna Mauthe, who departed this life on February 3, 1923, and his children, August F. *Page 699 Mauthe, Annie Mauthe, William Mauthe, Clara Rau, John Mauthe, Louis F. Mauthe, and Louise Hufschmidt; that Clara Rau died in 1915, leaving her last will by which she devised her interest in said real estate to her husband, G.C. Rau; that Louise Hufschmidt, after the death of her ancestor, William Mauthe, died intestate, leaving surviving her as her only heirs at law, her children, William Hufschmidt, and Carl Hufschmidt; that afterwards said William Hufschmidt died intestate, leaving as his only heirs at law, his daughter, Louise Hufschmidt; that in 1905, Louis F. Mauthe died intestate, leaving surviving him as his only heirs at law, his widow, Lena Mauthe, and his children, Lorine Essman, Raymond Mauthe, Dewey Mauthe, Harold Mauthe, Gertrude Mauthe, and Louise Mauthe; that in 1910 August F. Mauthe died, leaving his last will by which he bequeathed to his mother, brothers, and sisters each the sum of $5, and to Minnie Breckenridge the sum of $1,000, and devised and bequeathed all the rest and residue of his property, real, personal, and mixed, to his wife, Minnie Mauthe, she to have full power to dispose of same during her lifetime, and in the event that she should die without so disposing of same, then that said residue, or so much thereof as might remain undisposed of, should pass to and vest in Minnie Breckenridge one-half thereof, and the remaining one-half thereof in John Mauthe in trust for the use and benefit of the children of said Louis F. Mauthe; that in 1922 Minnie Mauthe died, leaving her last will by which, after making certain specific bequests, she devised and bequeathed to the congregation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church at Union, Missouri, all the rest, residue, and remainder of the property of which she died seized; that the plaintiffs Annie Mauthe, William Mauthe, John Mauthe, and G.C. Rau are each seized in fee of an undivided one-seventh interest in, of, and to said real estate; that the plaintiffs Carl Hufschmidt and Louise J. Hufschmidt are each seized in fee of an undivided one-fourteenth interest in said real estate; that, subject to the dower of *Page 700 said Lena Mauthe, plaintiffs Lorine Essman, Raymond Mauthe, Dewey Mauthe, Harold Mauthe, Gertrude Mauthe, and Louise Mauthe are jointly seized in fee of an undivided three-fourteenths interest in said real estate; that plaintiff Lena Mauthe is the owner of a dower interest in said real estate, that is to say, a one-twenty-first interest in said real estate for and during her natural life; that defendant Minnie Breckenridge is seized in fee of an undivided one-fourteenth interest in said real estate; that the Congregation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Union, and the trustees thereof, claim some interest in said real estate under the will of Minnie Mauthe, unknown to plaintiffs; that from the nature and amount of said real estate, and the number of its owners, the same cannot be partitioned in kind amongst the owners thereof without great prejudice to said owners; and prays that said real estate be sold in partition and that the proceeds thereof be divided between the plaintiffs and the defendant Minnie Breckenridge according to their respective rights and interests.

The answer of the defendants Congregation of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Union, Missouri, and its trustees, claims title to the undivided one-seventh part of the real estate described in the petition, under the will of Minnie Mauthe deceased.

The answer of the defendant Minnie Breckenridge alleges that, under and pursuant to the provisions of the last will of August F. Mauthe, his entire real and personal estate, except $5 bequeathed to his mother, $5 bequeathed to each of his brothers and sisters, and $1,000 bequeathed to Minnie Breckenridge, passed to and vested in Minnie Mauthe for her life as a trust fund, with power in said Minnie Mauthe to dispose of the same during her life, with remainder in fee as to so much thereof as remained undisposed of by her at her death to Minnie Breckenridge one-half thereof, and to John Mauthe one-half thereof in trust for the use and benefit of the children of Louis F. Mauthe; that August F. Mauthe at the *Page 701 time of his death was owner in fee, subject to the dower rights of his mother, of an undivided one-seventh of the real estate described in the petition, and was owner in fee of lots 7 and 8 of Robertson's Addition to the city of Union, in Franklin County; that John Mauthe duly qualified as executor of the last will of Minnie Mauthe, deceased, and as such executor, took charge of all the personal assets of the estate of said August F. Mauthe remaining in the custody and control of said Minnie Mauthe at the time of her death, and also as such executor took charge of a considerable amount of personal assets, the absolute property of said Minnie Mauthe; that without the fault of defendant Minnie Breckenridge the personal assets of said trust fund, and other personalty the absolute property of said Minnie Mauthe, all in the custody and control of said John Mauthe as executor of said Minnie Mauthe, have been and are so intermingled that without the aid of the equity powers of the court the items of said trust fund cannot be ascertained, and said trust fund cannot be distributed amongst the beneficiaries thereof according to their interests therein; and that as against said executor the defendant Minnie Breckenridge is entitled to an accounting in respect to the personalty now constituting said trust fund; and prays that the wills of the said August F. Mauthe and Minnie Mauthe be construed so far as relates to said trust fund and to both the real and personal property constituting said fund, and that the said trust fund may be decreed to be surrendered to and distributed amongst the respective parties entitled thereto according to their respective interests therein.

By its interlocutory decree, rendered August 15, 1923, the court finds the respective interests of the plaintiffs and the defendant Minnie Breckenridge in the real estate described in the petition, as set out in the petition, and orders that the real estate be sold, and that the proceeds of the sale, after deducting all proper costs, be divided between the plaintiffs and the defendant Minnie Breckenridge according to their respective rights as *Page 702 found by the court; and further finds that the said August F.

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

Related

Graham Ex Rel. Graham v. Stroh
117 S.W.2d 258 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 S.W. 145, 219 Mo. App. 694, 1926 Mo. App. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauthe-ex-rel-wood-v-breckenridge-moctapp-1926.