Wilma Krueger v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Hannibal, 721 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Wilma Krueger v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Hannibal, 721 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Christopher P. Sianis v. Mary S. Jensen Bradford K. Jensen, 294 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2002)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 641 Federal jurisdiction lacking in will contest proceedings3 citing cases2 listed here
  • Christopher P. Sianis v. Mary S. Jensen Bradford K. Jensen, 294 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2002).published 2 cites
    See Krueger v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 721 F.2d 640, 641 (8th Cir. 1983).
  • Brad H. Sidles v. John Dougherty, No. 99-1800 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 1999).unpublished
    See Krueger v. Farmers and Merchants Bank of Hannibal, Mo., 721 F.2d 640, 641 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); see also Hagerty v. Succession of Clement, 749 F.2d 217, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1984) (“a plaintiff may not seek a reversal of a state co…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wilma KRUEGER and Harold Stuller, Appellants,
v.
FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK OF HANNIBAL, MISSOURI, Executor of the Estate of Charles Six, Dorothy James and Jean Chapman, Appellees
83-1760.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Nov 23, 1983.
Published opinion
721 F.2d 640
1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15048
Michael J. Hollahan, Tucker & Hollahan, Pittsfield, Ill., Howard Snowden, La Grange, Mo., for appellants., Charles E. Rendlen, Branham Rendlen, Rendlen, Rendlen, Ahrens, Browne & Rend-len, P.C., Hannibal, Mo., for appellees.
Henley, Gibson, Fagg.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The parties having failed to raise the issue, we are obliged to address the question of subject matter jurisdiction on our own motion. A short statement of the case’s factual and procedural background will suffice.

Wilma Krueger and Harold Stuller attack the validity of a will executed by Charles Six on May 6,1981, and admitted to probate in state court on the ground that Six was of “unsound mind and memory” at the time of its making. The plaintiffs are not named as beneficiaries in this will, nor are they blood relatives of Six. Krueger and Stuller seek to supplant this will with a will dated April 1, 1980, it being their contention that Six was “of good health and of sound mind” at the time of the former will’s execution. They would share in the residuary estate under the former will. Charles Six died on July 12, 1981. Because the district court concluded that even if the second will was declared invalid, Krueger and Stuller would not take under the first will because it was not timely probated, nor would they take by inheritance, see Mo.Rev.Stat. § 474.010, it ruled that Krueger and Stuller lacked standing to contest the will. Hence, the district court, 565 F.Supp. 455, granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers and Merchants Bank of Hannibal, Dorothy James, and Jean Chapman.

This case, entailing nothing more than a will contest, is simply an extension of state probate proceedings. It does not involve a dispute between parties who, having accepted a will’s existence, differ as to its effect or construction. Thus, the case falls squarely within the settled rule that federal equity jurisdiction will not be entertained in a suit to set aside a will or the probate of a will. See Sutton v. English, 246 U.S. 199, 205, 38 S.Ct. 254, 256, 62 L.Ed. 664 (1918); Michigan Tech Fund v. Century National Bank, 680 F.2d 736, 739 (11th Cir.1982); Rice v. Rice Foundation, 610 F.2d 471, 474-76 (7th Cir.1979); Bassler v. Arrowood, 500 F.2d 138, 141 (8th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1116, 95 S.Ct. 796, 42 L.Ed.2d 815 (1975); Lamberg v. Callahan, 455 F.2d 1213, 1216 (2d Cir.1972); Mitchell v. Nixon, 200 F.2d 50, 51-52 (5th Cir.1952).

Federal jurisdiction lacking in this case, we remand to the district court with directions to vacate its judgment and assess costs against Krueger and Stuller.