Miller v. Slupsky

59 S.W. 990, 158 Mo. 643, 1900 Mo. LEXIS 114
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedDecember 11, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 59 S.W. 990 (Miller v. Slupsky) 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
Miller v. Slupsky, 59 S.W. 990, 158 Mo. 643, 1900 Mo. LEXIS 114 (Mo. 1900).

Opinion

BRACE, P. J.

On the 16th of January, 1895, Sophia Slupsky, wife of the defendant Abraham Slupsky, died intestate, without lineal descendants, leaving surviving her, the plaintiffs, her mother, Esther Miller, her sister Sarah Wasser, her half brother, Julius Miller, her sister, Lea Silverstein, her half sister, Eva Berger, and the defendant her sister, Florida Slupshy, her only heirs at law. Prior thereto, on the 27th of March, 1894, by warranty deed of that date, duly recorded, Morris Micheál, executor of the estate of Lucy Drucker, in consideration of the sum of $4,500, conveyed to the said defendant Abraham Slupsky lot 21, block 9, of Peter Lindell’s first addition to the city of St. Louis, having a front on the north line of Laclede avenue of twenty-five feet, on which is house No. 3319.

Afterwards on the 14th of December, 1897, the plaintiffs instituted this suit, by which they seek to divest the said defendant Abraham Slupsky of the title thus acquired, and to have the same vested in the heirs at law aforesaid of the said Sophia Slupsky, on the ground, as alleged in the petition, “that the purchase price of said lot, to-wit, the sum of $4,500, was paid with the separate money and property of the said Sophia Slupsky.” The answer to the petition was a general denial. On the hearing the plaintiffs’ bill was dismissed, and judgment rendered against them for costs, from which they appeal.

[646]*646(1) On. the trial the defendant Abraham Slupsky was permitted to testify, over the objection and exception of the plaintiffs to his competency, in substance, that the lot was bought and paid for by him with his own money. This was error. The plaintiffs’ cause of action is derivative. They as heirs were asserting a cause of action which Sophia Slupsky is alleged to have h'ad against Abraham Slupsky in her lifetime, she being the one party to that cause of action and he the other, and she being dead he was incompetent to testify in the action. [R. S. 1889, sec. 8918; Lins v. Lenhardt, 127 Mo. 271; Messimer v. McCray, 113 Mo. 382; Meier v. Thieman, 90 Mo. 433.] As was said in the last case cited: “The language of the statute is The other party,’ i. e., the other original party to the contract or cause of action, shall not be admitted to testify in his own favor, when death has precluded the other original party from an equal opportunity. Whether party to the record or not, makes no difference as to the statutory incompetency of the witness; he is prohibited from testifying in his own favor in any case whatsoever when the other original party to the contract or cause of action in issue and on trial is dead.” This being an equity case, however, the evidence of this incompetent witness might be disregarded, and a reversal for the error of its admission avoided, if, as is contended by counsel for respondent, “the story told” by the other witnesses1 is “incredible and beyond the possibilities of human belief.” The facts of the story disclosed by evidence as to which there seems to be no dispute, are about as follows:

Mrs. Sophia Slupsky was thrice married. Her first husband was one Morris Levy, who died about the year 1877. He was 'at the time a member in good standing in a lodge of “The Free Sons of Israel,” and after his death she was paid the sum of $1,000 by the lodge. Afterwards she married a [647]*647man by tbe name of Herman Michael, a jeweler by trade. When or where this marriage took place does not appear, but it does appear that after their marriage they resided, and Michael carried on business, first at New Madrid, Mo., after-wards at Jonesboro, Arkansas. The business seems to have been carried on in New Madrid in the name of “S. Michael & Company” or “Sophia Michael &. Company,” and resulted there in an apparent failure and an assignment to Jacob Slupsky, the husband of Sophia’s sister Florida. After which they went to Jonesboro, when the business seems to have been carried on by Michael in his own name for some seven or eight years before his death; and where on the 18th of March, 1891, he died intestate, childless, and without any known heirs so far as the evidence discloses. No administration was had upon his estate, and soon thereafter the widow disposed of all the property at Jonesboro, whether held in her own name or that of her husband, and came to St. Louis, to reside, bringing the proceeds thereof with her. Michael at the time of his death was a member of the “United Masonic Benefit Association,” and within ninety days of his death she received at St. Louis from that association, the further sum of $1,000. On the Jth of October, 1891, she married the defendant Abraham Slupsky. She was then about thirty-five years of age and Abraham Slupsky was about thirty-one. So far as the evidence discloses, he then had no property or money.

On November 18, 1891, they rented a safe deposit box of the St. Louis Safe Deposit Company to which each had a key, and they continued to hold that box until the year 1895.

Four or five months after the marriage, Abraham went into business with the Jacob Slupsky hereinbefore mentioned. The business was conducted at LaCrosse, Wisconsin. He put $1,500 into the business, and drew out $2,000 afterwards.

[648]*648On the 4th of March, 1894, he entered into a written contract for the purchase of the premises in controversy at the price of $4,500, three thousand dollars to he paid in cash, the remainder in monthly payments of fifty dollars each. In pursuance of this contract the cash payment was made with moneys taken from the safe deposit box aforesaid, and for the remainder Abraham Slupsky executed his promissory notes, securing the payment of the same by a deed of trust on the premises. Thereupon the deed in question, of the 2lth of March, 1894, was executed and delivered to Abraham Slupsky, and thereafter on the 11th of August, 1895, 'all his notes for the deferred payments were paid and the deed of trust released on the 5th day of September, 1896.

In the following extracts from the evidence of the witnesses as it appears in appellants’ abstract, will be found the additional facts from which the story as a whole is to be rounded out:

Esther Miller, plaintiff, testified: That Sophia Slupsky was married to Herman Michael, who died at Jonesboro, Arkansas, before her marriage to Abraham Slupsky. Herman Michael was engaged in the jewelry business at Jonesboro, Arkansas. He had a regular stock of jewelry, watches, silverware and diamonds. After the death of her husband she sold a paid of the jewelry and brought a part of it to St. Louis. She got, after her husband’s death, $2,000. She brought with her to St. Louis about $4,500. I put it in my bosom. She had $2,000 left her by her husband. Besides she got $1,000 insurance from one lodge, $15 from another lodge, and $25 from another. My daughter had $4,500 when she came to St. Louis from Jonesboro. This was before her marriage to Abraham Slupsky. My daughter came to St. Louis three or four months after the death of her husband, Herman Michael, then she went back to Jonesboro, Arkansas, [649]*649and sold out everything; then she returned to St. Louis three or four months afterwards, and married Abraham Slupsky. It was seven months after her first husband died that she married Abraham Slupsky. My daughter Sophia at the time of her death was living in a house on Laclede avenue that she bought; I don’t know the number of the house. She had been living in the house seven or eight months before her death.

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

Related

Richardson v. Kuhlmyer
250 S.W.2d 355 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1952)
Larue Ex Rel. Miller v. Larue
294 S.W. 723 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1927)
Jones v. Patterson
271 S.W. 370 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
Fogle v. Pindell
154 S.W. 81 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Graham v. Wilson
153 S.W. 83 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
McKee v. Downing
124 S.W. 7 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Smith v. Smith
100 S.W. 579 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
McMurray v. McMurray
79 S.W. 701 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1904)
Reed v. Morgan
73 S.W. 381 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Patton v. Fox
69 S.W. 287 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Tucker v. Gentry
67 S.W. 723 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 S.W. 990, 158 Mo. 643, 1900 Mo. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-slupsky-mo-1900.