Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.

42 Citing cases

  1. Wanstrath v. Kappel

    218 S.W.2d 618 (Mo. 1949)   Cited 2 times

    d expenses, to be charged against plaintiff's "child's share"; and likewise erred in ordering that the allowance to the guardian ad litem for his fees and expenses and the allowance of fees to the attorneys for the trustees should not be borne proportionately by plaintiff's "child's share", but should be taxed as costs against and paid out of the balance of the corpus of the trust estate, after the determination of plaintiff's share to her under the decree of the trial court. Griffin v. Channing, 54 Mo. 282: Howard v. Strode, 242 Mo. 210, 146 S.W. 792; In re Bernay's Estate, 126 S.W.2d 209; In re Poe's Estate, 201 S.W.2d 441; Hewitt v. Duncan's Estate, 226 Mo. App. 254, 43 S.W.2d 87; Burr v. Burr, 163 Mo. App. 395, 143 S.W. 1096; In re Dean's Estate, 166 S.W.2d 529; Lucas v. Manufacturing Lumbermen's Underwriters, 166 S.W.2d 537; In re Stevens' Estate, 116 S.W.2d 527; In re Carlin's Estate, 47 S.W.2d 213; In re McKinney's Estate, 173 S.W.2d 898; In re Mayhall's Estate, 151 S.W.2d 545; Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 744; Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 298 Mo. 148, 249 S.W. 629. Thomas S. McPheeters and Bryan, Cave, McPheeters McRoberts for Minette McFarland, appellant.

  2. In re Buder

    217 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. 1949)   Cited 27 times

    Trustees are entitled to reasonable compensation for their services, even where the trust instrument does not provide for it, and even where the trust is completely void, whereas here the trust instrument does specifically provide that the trustees should be compensated. Pennsylvania Co. for Ins. v. Picher, 206 Mo. App. 325, 227 S.W. 863; Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 744; In re McKinney's Estate, 351 Mo. 718, 173 S.W.2d 898; Commerce Trust Co. v. Aylward, 145 F.2d 113; Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, secs. 974, 975; Scott on Trusts, sec. 242, pp. 1383-84; Restatement of the Law, Trusts, sec. 242, p. 741. (2) Trustees may contract with the cestui que trustents.

  3. Buder v. New York Trust Co.

    82 F.2d 168 (2d Cir. 1936)   Cited 8 times

    And even a trustee has been permitted to give an option where that was the customary and most appropriate method of realizing the best price. Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 744. If the pledge consists of stock which is daily sold in large quantities on the Exchange, a power to give an option on such shares should not be implied, for there is no reason to suppose that they could not be sold to the best advantage at the market. However broad his power of sale, a pledgee may not wantonly sacrifice the property, and he would doubtless have difficulty in justifying a sale of such shares in any other way than on the Exchange.

  4. Ingalls Iron Works Company v. Ingalls

    177 F. Supp. 151 (N.D. Ala. 1959)   Cited 17 times

    To conclude that the executors, to conserve and to enhance the estate, are without power under the trust indenture to do what they would have been obliged to do in the first instance, the Court must sidestep the provision of the indenture and ignore the history of this litigation. Though dealing with a short term option, the Supreme Court of Missouri, in Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 744, 756, following an exhaustive review of the authorities, held that a trustee holding stock, had, under the power of sale conferred by the will, the right to grant an option to purchase as one of the ordinary methods of sale. In its opinion, it said:

  5. Jennings v. Murdock

    220 Kan. 182 (Kan. 1976)   Cited 34 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in trial court's refusal to remove trustee, despite trial court's finding of breach of duty by trustee

    ) The duty of a trustee to exercise judgment independent of the wishes of the beneficiaries, especially of a spendthrift trust, was recognized in Loud v. Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 744. There, failure to consult with trust beneficiaries before selling trust assets was held not to indicate bad faith. The fact that the trust was in the nature of a "spendthrift trust" indicated to the Missouri court that "it was the intention of the testatrix to substitute the judgment of the trustee for that of the beneficiaries in the management and sale of the trust estate."

  6. First National Bank of Kansas City v. Hyde

    363 S.W.2d 647 (Mo. 1963)   Cited 98 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Where as here the trust estate is created by will, the trustees must look to the will for its powers in the execution of the trust and the management of the trust estate. Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 744, 754 [2]; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Ghio, 240 Mo. App. 1033, 222 S.W.2d 556, 560 [1]; 90 C.J.S. Trusts § 247, pp. 225, 229; 50 Am. Jur., Trusts § 307, p. 243. Article Sixth (a) of the will deals with the investment powers of the trustees.

  7. Curotto v. Hammack

    241 S.W.2d 897 (Mo. 1951)   Cited 13 times

    (1) A broker employed to sell property cannot, without the principal's full knowledge and consent, become the purchaser; under this rule a broker, without a full disclosure of all the facts to his principal, cannot sell to one of his salesmen or employees, nor to a partner, nor to a near relative. McNeill v. Dobson-Bainbridge Realty Co., 195 S.W.2d 626; Wendt v. Fischer, 243 N.Y. 439, 154 N.E. 303; Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N.Y. 327; Morgan v. Hardy, 16 Neb. 427, 20 N.W. 337; 12 C.J.S., p. 102, sec. 42; Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 744. (2) The rule stated in Point (1) applies, although the sale is made at a fair price, or at the price and on the terms fixed by the principal and there is no actual fraud or injury to the principal. McNeill v. Dobson-Bainbridge Realty Co., 195 S.W.2d 626; Wendt v. Fischer, 243 N.Y. 439, 154 N.E. 303; Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N.Y. 327; Morgan v. Hardy, 16 Neb. 427, 20 N.W. 337; 12 C.J.S., p. 102, sec. 42; Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 744. (3) One selling has a right to know who is buying.

  8. Rand v. McKittrick

    346 Mo. 466 (Mo. 1940)   Cited 8 times

    (b) Missouri cases. Gamble v. Gibson, 59 Mo. 585; Taylor v. Hite, 61 Mo. 142; Merritt v. Merritt, 62 Mo. 150; Garesche v. Priest, 78 Mo. 126; Drake v. Crane, 127 Mo. 85, 29 S.W. 990; Garesche v. Levering Inv. Co., 146 Mo. 436, 48 S.W. 653; Cornet v. Cornet, 269 Mo. 298, 190 S.W. 333; Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 754; Fairleigh v. Fidelity Natl. Bank Trust Co., 73 S.W.2d 248, 335 Mo. 360. (2) Trustees should be limited in their investments of the trust res to governmental securities including state and municipal bonds and first mortgages.

  9. State ex Rel. Mineral Co. v. Hostetter

    337 Mo. 718 (Mo. 1935)   Cited 24 times
    In State ex rel. Superior Mineral Co. v. Hostetter, 337 Mo. 718, 85 S.W.2d 743, the company sought review of the holding in the Woodruff case in the Supreme Court of Missouri.

    [Kirk v. Mattier, 140 Mo. 23, 41 S.W. 252.] It is a matter of its own choice whether a mining company deals with miners under the statutory contract or by some other system. Relators also claim that the opinion of the Court of Appeals, by not holding that the transaction between Woodruff and the mining company was a sale, conflicts with the definition of a sale made by this court in Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, l.c. 596, 281 S.W. 744, and in other cases which quote Blackstone's definition. In view of the fact that this court has never held that the contract, provided by the above statutes as the basis of the relationship between a miner and a mining company on whose land he works, is a contract for the sale of ore, we cannot interfere by certiorari with this opinion of the Court of Appeals because it has not so held.

  10. Rockhill Tennis Club v. Volker

    331 Mo. 947 (Mo. 1932)   Cited 54 times

    (2) The option is invalid because the trustee had no authority to give an option. 26 R.C.L. sec. 129, p. 1279; Moore v. Trainer, 97 Atl. (Pa.) 460; Dickey v. Volker, 321 Mo. 235, 11 S.W.2d 278; Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 313 Mo. 552, 281 S.W. 744; Crown Co. v. Cohn, 88 Or. 624, 172 P. 806; Lackland v. Walker, 52 S.W. 414, 151 Mo. 210; In re Armory Board, 60 N.Y.S. 882; Hickok v. Still, 168 Pa. 155, 31 A. 1100; Midland County v. Slaughter, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 328, 130 S.W. 612; Hedgecock v. Tate, 168 N.C. 660; Swift v. Erwin, 148 S.W. 267; 26 R.C.L. p. 1342, sec. 206; 25 R.C.L. p. 244, sec. 46. (3) The option is invalid because the trustee had no power to delegate a discretionary duty. 39 Cyc. 304; Markel v. Peck, 129 S.W. 243, 144 Mo. App. 701; Cassada v. Wallace, 15 S.W. 138, 102 Mo. 575; Polliham v. Reverley, 81 S.W. 182, 181 Mo. 622. (4) The option is invalid because the will of William Rockhill Nelson expressly prohibits any irrevocable delegation of power by the trustees. (5) Equity will not grant the specific performance of a contract to arbitrate.