Nelson v. Sudiek
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Lincoln Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) The court should have allowed plaintiff to prove the contents of the first will. It being destroyed, secondary evidence was admissible. Foulk v. Colburn, 48 Mo. 225. (2) The evidence does not show that Woostermeier constituted and appointed the defendant a trustee, but at best only his agent to loan the money for him. The money was not loaned during Woostermeier’s life, and his death revoked the agency.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Lincoln Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) The court should have allowed plaintiff to prove the contents of the first will. It being destroyed, secondary evidence was admissible. Foulk v. Colburn, 48 Mo. 225. (2) The evidence does not show that Woostermeier constituted and appointed the defendant a trustee, but at best only his agent to loan the money for him. The money was not loaned during Woostermeier’s life, and his death revoked the agency. Deck v. Page, 17 Mo. 234. The offer of defendant to give plaintiff the note taken by him shows that he did not consider…
1Opinion of the CourtRombatter, P. J.
The petition charges the defendant with having received nine hundred dollars on deposit from plaintiff’s decedent, for which he refused to account to the plaintiff, the decedent’s lawful executor.. The answer admits the receipt of the nine hundred dollars, but denies that it was a deposit as stated in the petition. The answer further states that the decedent, shortly before his death, and in view of his speedy dissolution, being desirous of making a gift to his two minor children, delivered the money to the defendant, in trust for such children and with • instructions to loan it out in a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Shackleford v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Trorlicht v. WeizeneckerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876