Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Mo. 403

Hayden's Executors v. Marmaduke

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1854

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1854-03-15

<p>X. Any trustee having reasonable doubt as to the proper disposition of funds in his hands has a right, for his own safety, to apply to a court of equity for directions, making the persons interested parties to the proceeding.</p> <p>2. Under the code, it is improper to dismiss a suit because all are not made parties who should have been, the court having power to order others interested to be made parties.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 1942

9 state decisions

401854186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gamble, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2In this case, executors who have in their hands a fund claimed by different persons, come into court asking the direction of the court as to the disposition to be made of it, in order that they may be protected by the decree of the court. The fund itself has been produced by means not in the contemplation of the testator. The court, on its motion, dismissed the case upon the hearing, without any cause appearing for such proceeding.

¶31. If the reason for such dismissal was the want of jurisdiction, the reason was fallacious. Any trustee placed in circumstances in which he may have reasonable doubt as to the proper disposition of the funds in his hands, has a right, for his own safety, to apply to a court of equity for directions, making the persons interested parties to the proceeding. Talbot v. Earl of Radnor, 3 Mylne & Keen, 252. Curtis v. Candler, 6 Mad. 123. Lewin on Trusts, 318.

¶4*4042. If the case was dismissed because the Circuit Court thought there were not all the parties in the suit who should have been brought in, this was improper, because, under section 10, article 3 of the code, the court had the power to order that any other persons necessary to be made parties, in order to a complete determination of the controversy, should be made parties.

¶5The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded, to be proceeded with.

/19/mo/403 · .json · Public domain