Spratt v. Lawson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Sura. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) Nannie S. Spratt should not be permitted to renounce this will, and ber written acceptance of it, because her acts in this case are fraudulent. Twenty-eight thousand dollars and more of this estate was personalty.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Sura. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) Nannie S. Spratt should not be permitted to renounce this will, and ber written acceptance of it, because her acts in this case are fraudulent. Twenty-eight thousand dollars and more of this estate was personalty. A. ,D. Spratt in his lifetime could have given every dollar of it to his nephews and nieces or parties to whom he desired it to go without his wife’s consent, and he would have done so if his wife had not agreed to the will, or if he had thought she would not abide by her acceptance of the will. (2) Nannie S.…
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
Suit by plaintiff (the widow of A. I). Spratt, deceased) against the executors of her husband’s will, and the legatees named therein, to have partitioned certain lots in the village of Clark in Randolph county, and' about 490 acres of land in Audrain county in this State. The petition sets out the fact that plaintiff is the widow of A. D. Spratt, who died M'av 31, 1899, childless, leaving a will by which all the land in question was deeded to his sister, Assinia Lawson, and to the children and grandchildren of Hall W. Spratt, a brother of the deceased, and that after saidwill had been duly…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bretz v. MatneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
3Cited by13 opinions
- Egger v. EggerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Merchants' Nat. Bank of Mobile v. HubbardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Barnard v. KeathleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Murray v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Estate of Goessling v. GoesslingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.