Wilson v. Yandell

165 So. 430, 174 Miss. 713, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 204
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 3, 1936
DocketNo. 31753.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 165 So. 430 (Wilson v. Yandell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilson v. Yandell, 165 So. 430, 174 Miss. 713, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 204 (Mich. 1936).

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellees, Mrs. N. W. Yandell and Miss Anne Yandell, daughter and granddaughter, respectively, of G-. A. Wilson, deceased, filed for probate against the estate of the said deceased, four promissory notes for the sum of eight thousand six hundred sixty-seven dollars and sixty-seven cents, each signed by E. L. Parker and E'. L. Parker, Jr., *719 payable to G. A. Wilson or bearer, on or before January 1, 1933, 1934, 1935-, and 1936, respectively. These notes were not indorsed by Gr. A. Wilson, and on the back thereof were notations of payments of all interest dne np to January 1, 1929. The notes were probated and allowed by the clerk for the sum of thirty thousand dollars and one cent.

Subsequent to the filing and probating of the notes, the executors of the said estate filed a contest thereof, and moved that claimants be required to furnish a bill of particulars relative thereto. In response to this motion, the claimants, appellees herein, filed an answer asserting the validity of the claim, and also filed a bill of particulars, setting forth at length and in great detail the basis of the alleged liability of the said estate. The bill of particulars averred, in substance, that prior to his death, and on or about the 10th day of December, 1919, Gr. A. Wilson delivered to the Wilson Banking Company, of Greenwood, Mississippi, as trustee for Mrs. Nellie Wilson Yandell and Miss Anne Yandell, his daughter and granddaughter, respectively, promissory notes signed by E. L. Parker and E. L. Parker, Jr., in the ag'gregate face value of thirty thousand dollars, which notes bore interest from date, and were part of a series executed by the same makers, payable one on January 1, 1920, and one on the 1st day of January of each year thereafter until all had become due, and which were secured by a deed of trust on lands in Sunflower county; that in the year 1922 the unpaid balance of the indebtedness represented by this series of notes was recast and divided into installments, evidenced by fifteen equal promissory notes for eight thousand six hundred sixty-seven dollars and sixty-seven cents, the first one being due and payable on January 1, 1923, and one on the 1st of January in each year thereafter until all became due and payable.

It was further averred that, of the revamped and recast notes, a sufficient number to represent thirty thou *720 sand dollars in face and principal amount were delivered to the Wilson Banking Company to be held by it, impressed with a trust in favor of claimants in the amount of thirty thousand dollars, the amount of the original alleged gift to them; that said series of notes was secured by a first mortgage or deed of trust on approximately one thousand two' hundred fifty acres of Delta farm lands in Sunflower county, Mississippi; that the delivery of said notes to the said bank, for the use and benefit of appellees, operated as, and constituted, a proportionate assignment to them of said mortgage or deed of trust securing said notes; and that upon such delivery the said claimants became and were the owners of a proportionate part of said security.

It was further averred that, notwithstanding the delivery of said promissory notes, and notwithstanding the fact that the equitable and beneficial title of said notes, with their collateral security, was in the claimants, the said Gr. A. Wilson, without the knowledge and consent of the claimants, waived the priority and lien of the mortgage or deed of trust securing the series of notes, including those owned by and held for the use and benefit of claimants, and made said mortgage or deed of trust second and subordinate to two deeds of trust executed by E. L. Parker and E. L. Parker, Jr., one in favor of the Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, to secure a loan of twenty thousand dollars, and one in favor of the Joint Stock Land Bank of Mississippi, securing a further loan of twenty thousand dollars.

It was further averred that each of the said loans for twenty thousand dollars to the Parkers was made without the knowledge, consent, or acquiescence of the claimants; that the execution of said waivers and the abrogation and nullification of the first lien securing the notes held by them was not authorized by them; that neither of them received any part of either loan of twenty thousand dollars, and that no part of the notes owned by, or im *721 pressed with a trust in favor of, the claimants was paid or satisfied from the proceeds of said loans.

It was further averred that, as a result of the execution of the said waivers and the subsequent default of the mortgagors in the payment of the sums becoming due and secured by the deeds of trust for twenty thousand dollars, they were both foreclosed and the property securing the same was sold at and for the amounts secured thereby; and that, by reason of the sale of said property and the insolvency and bankruptcy of E. L. Parker, Jr., and the estate of E. L. Parker, now deceased, the claimants were, and will be, unable to collect any part of the said indebtedness evidenced by the notes owned by them, or held for their use and benefit, all of which, with interest from January 1, 1930', were then past due and unpaid.

It was further averred that the said Gr. A. Wilson at all times regarded the obligation of the said notes as his own; that he repeatedly told the claimants that, in the event the said E. L. Parker and E. L. Parker, Jr., failed to pay said notes and interest thereon at maturity, he (the said Wilson) was bound therefor and would pay the same, and that he recognized his obligation in this respect by the manner in which he dealt with the notes; that is to say, payment out of his own funds of interest on said notes when the same became due and were unpaid by the makers thereof, the execution of the said waivers without the knowledge and consent or acquiescence of the claimants, and his dealings throughout with the said notes and security throughout as though they were his own personal property.

It was further averred that the claimants were entitled to recover from the estate of Gr. A. Wilson, deceased, the amount that was realized from the said two loans of twenty thousand dollars each, to the extent of thirty thousand dollars and accrued interest, together with ten per cent attorney’s fees as provided in the original notes; *722 the amount derived from the said loans having been diverted by the said Wilson to purposes other than the payment or part payment of the notes held by the claimants. 'The prayer of the answer and bill of particulars was that Ithe contest of the probated claim be dismissed; that the executors of the estate be ordered to pay such probated claim and interest thereon, together with ten per cent attorney’s fees as provided in the original probated notes, or that claimants be given a decree against said estate for their proportionate part of the proceeds of the two twenty thousand dollar loans, which should have been applied to the payment of the said thirty thousand dollars and interest and attorney’s fees.

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

Related

Elizabeth L. Strickland v. Amy Alyece Broome
179 So. 3d 1088 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2015)
Iemma v. Lingle
822 So. 2d 320 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2002)
Estate of McKellar v. Brown
404 So. 2d 550 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1981)
Central Optical Merchandising Co. v. Estate of Lowe
160 So. 2d 673 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1964)
Johnson v. Odom
31 So. 2d 120 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1947)
Boggan v. Scruggs
29 So. 2d 86 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1947)
Whitehead v. Puffer
192 So. 566 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 So. 430, 174 Miss. 713, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-yandell-miss-1936.