The case was an equitable class action by a cemetery company seeking court authorization for the trustee of a perpetual care trust fund (funded by lot sales) to deviate from the original 1904 and 1922 trust terms, which restricted investments to Missouri and U.S. bonds or first mortgages on Jackson County real estate, in favor of a broader prudent-investor standard that included corporate stocks. The trial court granted the deviation, but the appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the trust's purposes would be defeated or substantially impaired without the change. The core reasoning was that trust investment restrictions should not be lightly disregarded absent a clear showing of necessity based on current income, expenses, lot-sale prospects, and maintenance costs, even though market conditions had shifted since the trust's creation.

property

The case involved a union suing a bank for cashing a check payable to the union on an unauthorized endorsement by its president, alleging conversion of the proceeds from an insurance dividend check issued in 1955. The trial court entered judgment for the bank after a jury verdict, which was affirmed on appeal. The Missouri Supreme Court held that the claim was barred by the five-year statute of limitations under Sec. 516.120 because the action was one for conversion rather than on any endorsement or writing, so the ten-year statute did not apply. The court reasoned that the injury occurred and damages were sustained and ascertainable when the bank paid the check in 1955, with no fraud or concealment to toll the limitations period, and the suit was not filed until 1962.

proceduretorts & liability

This case was a declaratory judgment action by IBM challenging the constitutionality and applicability of Missouri's sales tax statute, Sec. 144.020, subd. 1(8), to its business machine rental transactions in the state. IBM, which manufactures machines outside Missouri and ships them in for rental, argued the tax provision created arbitrary discrimination because it could not claim the exemption available to those who purchased machines after paying sales or use tax, and that the 1963 amending act's title was defective. The court ruled the statute constitutional and validly imposed the tax on sellers for the privilege of engaging in taxable rental services at retail, holding that IBM had no use tax liability on the machines or their materials that would support a discrimination claim and that the act's title sufficiently related to sales and use tax. The judgment for defendants was affirmed.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, who appealed on grounds that his signed statement to police was inadmissible as a coerced confession violating his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court conducted a preliminary hearing, found the statement voluntary based on officer testimony showing no mistreatment or threats, and admitted it at trial, ultimately affirming the judgment. Applying the pre-Miranda totality-of-the-circumstances test for trials before June 1966, the court noted the absence of evidence of coercion, the presence of warnings about the statement's use in court, group questioning by the assistant circuit attorney, and the defendant's cooperation without any claims of impropriety from witnesses. Other appellate claims were not considered as they were not properly preserved.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a will contest by the niece and nephews of James M. Roche, who challenged his December 1962 will on grounds of lack of mental capacity due to senility and undue influence by the O'Connor family, who were named beneficiaries. The jury upheld the will's validity, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment after reviewing the evidence and procedural claims. The court found substantial evidence from witnesses, including the drafting attorney and medical professionals, supporting the testator's sound mind and memory at the time of execution, and determined that the contestants failed to prove undue influence beyond speculation given the testator's independent actions. It also rejected challenges to jury instructions, witness testimony, and the use of a jury trial, noting that any procedural irregularities were waived or non-prejudicial.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who bought a home in a new subdivision after seeing advertisements stating that the water supply was "state approved," when in fact the developer had not yet submitted plans for approval, the water was hauled in from elsewhere, and later proved salty and odorous. The buyers sued the real estate sales agent and related defendants for fraudulent misrepresentations, obtaining a verdict for actual and punitive damages. The trial court denied the defendants' motions for directed verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling while ordering a new trial on damages only due to an erroneous instruction. The Missouri Supreme Court held that sufficient evidence of intentional misrepresentations existed to support the fraud claim and actual damages but reversed and remanded for a full new trial on all issues because of flawed instructions on liability, damages, and multiple defendants.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

This case was an original proceeding in prohibition brought by partners operating a limestone quarry (the relators) to prevent a trial judge from compelling them to answer interrogatories seeking their partnership tax returns and personal balance sheets. The underlying suit by neighboring property owners sought both compensatory and punitive damages for alleged injuries and discomfort caused by the quarry operations. The court held that the judge had authority to require answers to the interrogatories because, in cases with multiple defendants, punitive damages may be assessed separately against each defendant in different amounts based on individual culpability and financial condition. The reasoning distinguished punitive damages from compensatory damages, which must be awarded in a single joint-and-several sum, and noted that modern civil procedure rules permit separate verdict findings that make evidence of each defendant's wealth relevant and admissible. The provisional rule in prohibition was therefore discharged.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a petitioner's motion under Rule 27.26 to set aside five 1940 sentences from the Circuit Court of Gasconade County, with the claim that the sentences for burglary, larceny, jail breaking, and stealing an automobile should run concurrently rather than consecutively. The transcript showed docket entries and judgments that explicitly tied the start of each sentence to the termination of the prior one, resulting in a total term extending to 1982. The court held that the judgments clearly expressed the intent for consecutive service and that these controlled over any less specific docket minutes. It affirmed the denial of the motion, relying on precedent that cumulative sentences are permissible when the judgments unambiguously indicate such intent.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether the plaintiff had acquired an easement by prescription for a right-of-way across the defendant's land to access his own property. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a 30-foot wide easement along the south side of a drainage ditch. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the plaintiff's use from 1919 to 1954 was open, notorious, continuous, exclusive, and under a claim of right without any objection or interference from prior or current owners, satisfying the requirements for a prescriptive easement rather than mere permissive use.

property

The case involved a defendant charged under Missouri's habitual criminal statute with carrying a concealed dangerous weapon. After a jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced by the court to two years' imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence from multiple witnesses that the gun was hidden in the defendant's pants or belt and not visible until drawn, meeting the legal test of concealment as not discernible by ordinary observation, with intent inferred from the circumstances. The court also held that the prosecutor was properly allowed to ask leading questions of a hostile state witness who showed reluctance to testify fully.

criminal lawguns

This case involved a declaratory judgment action seeking to construe the will of Harry Kellar Poindexter, which created trusts for his widow and children, and to provide instructions to the trustees regarding distribution of assets. One daughter, Mary Elizabeth Silverstein, renounced her interests under the will as part of a family settlement agreement that resolved her will contest, with the agreement providing for equal distribution among the testator's other three children after transfers to Mary. The court held that the renunciation was valid and absolute, relating back to the will's effective date, which accelerated the remainder interests of the three other children as vested, entitling them to immediate distribution of the trust assets. The minor grandchildren had no remaining interest in the corpus because the will did not manifest an intent to prevent acceleration upon renunciation of the prior interest. The judgment affirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the adult beneficiaries.

family lawproperty

The case involved two defendants jointly charged with second-degree burglary and stealing under Missouri's habitual criminal statute after police found them inside the Dolly Madison Cake Company building around 4:25 A.M. with tools, money matching the missing amount, and other items taken from the premises. A jury found them guilty, and the trial court sentenced them to consecutive terms of seven years for burglary and three years for stealing. On appeal, the defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding ownership of the property and alleged errors in the jury instructions on intent, circumstantial evidence, reasonable doubt, and joint liability, as well as certain arguments by counsel. The court reviewed the record and all assignments of error from the motions for new trial, concluded there was no prejudicial error, and affirmed the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Rima, the defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery for his alleged role as the driver of the getaway car in a holdup at the Kansas City Star Credit Union, during which over $34,000 was stolen. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence of identification was insufficient to support the verdict, that testimony about viewing mug books was prejudicial, and that the alibi instruction improperly shifted the burden of proof. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the eyewitness identification was positive and sufficient for the jury to resolve conflicts with alibi testimony, that the mug-book reference did not constitute reversible error, and that the alibi instruction was proper when read with other instructions on reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree murder after entering a guilty plea in 1960 while represented by a public defender, despite having partially paid private counsel who failed to appear due to an unpaid balance. The defendant later moved to withdraw the plea and vacate the sentence, claiming inadequate explanation of the charge and consequences. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing, finding no completed contract with private counsel. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that the record lacked sufficient inquiry by the judge into the defendant's understanding of the plea or its voluntariness, as needed to validate the plea under applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former employee suing his employer, Centrifugal & Mechanical Industries, Inc., and various officers and related parties for damages after his discharge in 1961, alleging interference with contractual relations, conspiracy to cause his firing, injurious falsehoods, and failure to provide a statutorily compliant service letter stating the true reason for termination. The trial court directed a verdict for all defendants on all counts at the close of the plaintiff's evidence. The appellate court affirmed as to the first three counts, finding no definite employment contract existed to support claims of interference or conspiracy and insufficient evidence of actionable falsehoods, but reversed and remanded for retrial on the service letter count against the corporate employer, holding that the evidence could support a finding that the letter did not state the true cause of discharge as required by Missouri statute.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In Lee v. Guettler, a husband and wife filed separate suits seeking damages for personal injuries and loss of the wife's services after an automobile collision in Kansas. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs' prior joint judgment and recovery in magistrate court for damage to their jointly owned vehicle constituted a final adjudication that barred the new claims under res judicata principles to prevent splitting a cause of action. The trial court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the joint property-damage claim was a distinct cause of action from each spouse's individual personal-injury claims because the spouses had separate interests in their own injuries and were required to join only for the jointly owned property.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a jewelry distributor suing insurer Aetna for $25,000 in coverage under a temporary jeweler's block policy for a second theft loss, and alternatively suing its insurance agent Swade for negligence in failing to keep the coverage in force after Aetna signaled cancellation. The trial court directed a verdict for Aetna and the jury found for Swade, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment for Aetna while reversing the judgment for Swade and remanding for a new trial. The court concluded that the binder coverage expired by its own terms before the second loss occurred, precluding recovery from Aetna, but held that the jury instructions on Swade's duty incorrectly shortened the relevant time period and limited the required efforts to replace the policy, constituting reversible error.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case was a condemnation proceeding by the Missouri State Highway Commission to acquire a small tract of land and related access rights for converting U.S. Highway 40 into Interstate 70, a limited-access freeway with outer frontage roads. The court decided that abutting landowners, including those operating a service station, were not entitled to additional compensation for the loss of direct access to the main highway lanes, as the provided outer roadways offered reasonable alternative access. The core reasoning was that the state may regulate traffic flow, impose one-way lanes, and limit direct entry to through-traffic lanes under its police power and eminent domain authority without paying for changes in access type when frontage roads mitigate the impact, consistent with the majority rule among jurisdictions.

propertyprocedure

This case involved consolidated petitions by vending machine operators seeking refunds of Missouri sales taxes they had paid under protest on transactions under twenty-five cents. The Director of Revenue had denied the refunds, but the trial court ruled in the petitioners' favor, and the Director appealed. The court held that the 1961 amendment establishing a bracket system for collecting the two-percent sales tax meant no tax was required to be collected or remitted on sales below twenty-five cents, as the law is a transaction tax imposed on purchasers with sellers liable only for amounts collected or required to be collected. It affirmed the refunds for those small transactions but reversed the award of costs against the state, finding no statutory authority for such costs in revenue cases.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved an original proceeding in prohibition seeking to prevent a trial court from allowing a plaintiff to dismiss without prejudice his action for loss of his wife's services, after that action had been consolidated with his wife's separate personal injury suit arising from the same incident. The court held that a plaintiff has no right to dismiss without prejudice once an order of consolidation under Rule 66.01(b) is in effect. The reasoning was that the rules on consolidation and dismissal must be read together, that consolidation merges the cases into one action for purposes of judicial efficiency, and that permitting unilateral dismissal would improperly nullify a discretionary consolidation order made to avoid piecemeal litigation in interrelated spousal claims; the court noted it retains authority to later modify or set aside consolidation if justice requires.

proceduretorts & liabilityfamily law