14 S.W. 710 (Mo. 1890), Raalte v. Harrington

Citation:14 S.W. 710, 101 Mo. 602
Opinion Judge:Black, J.
Party Name:Van Raalte, Appellant, v. Harrington
Attorney:Alexander Martin and J. S. Laurie for appellant. Lee & Ellis, David Goldsmith and Albert Arnstein for respondent.
Judge Panel:Black, J. Barclay, J., not sitting.
Case Date:November 17, 1890
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 710

14 S.W. 710 (Mo. 1890)

101 Mo. 602

Van Raalte, Appellant,

v.

Harrington

Supreme Court of Missouri

November 17, 1890

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Shepard Barclay, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Alexander Martin and J. S. Laurie for appellant.

(1) The refusal of the trial court to submit special issues to the jury as prayed by plaintiff constitutes reversible error. R. S. 1889, secs. 6594, 6596, 6598; Commonwealth v. Desmond, 123 Mass. 407; Rogers v. Railroad, 35 Mo. 153; State v. Proctor, 90 Mo. 334; State v. Railroad, 32 F. 722; Jennings v. Cutler, 12 Kan. 500; State v. Crawford, 11 Kan. 32; Powers v. Kneckhoff, 41 Mo. 425; Marmaduke v. McMasters, 24 Mo. 51. (2) The instructions given by the court disregard the issue of actual fraud made by the pleadings and submit the case to the jury on an erroneous theory. Fraser v. Passage, 63 Mich. 551; Carroll v. Hayward, 124 Mass. 120; Coolidge v. Heneky, 11 Or. 327; Parker v. Conner, 93 N.Y. 118; French v. Reed, 70 Ia. 122; Shroeder v. Walsh, 120 Ill. 403; Catchings v. Harcrow, 49 Ark. 20; Cook v. Cook, 43 Md. 523; Dougherty v. Cooper, 88 Mo. 602; Frederick v. Allgaier, 88 Mo. 602; Sexton v. Anderson, 93 Mo. 373; Hamilton v. Marks, 63 Mo. 167. (3) The court by refusing instructions as prayed for by plaintiff denied him his proper attitude as purchaser for value and placed him in a false light before the jury. Instruction number 10 is proper in form and elementary in principle. Albert v. Besel, 88 Mo. 150; Jones v. Simpson, 110 U.S. 609; Schroeder v. Walsh, 120 Ill. 403; Shelley v. Booth, 73 Mo. 74; Sexton v. Anderson, 95 Mo. 379; Levey v. Adler, 97 Mo. 413; Ryan v. Young, 79 Mo. 30; Holmes v. Braidwood, 82 Mo. 610. (4) There is no evidence to support the verdict. Hipsley v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 348; Hearns v. Keith, 63 Mo. 84; Lomer v. Meeker, 25 N.Y. 361; Evans v. George, 80 Ill. 51; Lionberger v. Pohlman, 16 Mo.App. 392; Hausman v. Hope, 20 Mo.App. 193; Waddingham v. Loker, 44 Mo. 132; Funkhouser v. Lay, 78 Mo. 458; Priest v. Way, 87 Mo. 16; State v. Primm, 98 Mo. 373. The burden of proof was on defendant to establish notice, and, there being a total and absolute failure of evidence on the point, the verdict should not be permitted to stand. Hearn v. Keith, 63 Mo. 84; Whitsett v. Ransom, 79 Mo. 258; Spohn v. Railroad, 87 Mo. 74; Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 237; Dunn v. Dunnaker, 87 Mo. 597. (5) There was no evidence tending to show the market value of the goods at the date of the trial.

Lee & Ellis, David Goldsmith and Albert Arnstein for respondent.

(1) The court committed no error in refusing to submit the special issues; the questions submitted under the law of 1885 should be material issues made by the pleadings. Flannery v. Railroad, 23 Mo.App. 120; Turner v. Railroad, 23 Mo.App. 12; Chicago v. Dunlevy, 22 N.E. 15; Blake v. Davis, 20 Ohio 231; Benton v. Railroad, 25 Mo.App. 155; Jackson v. Ins. Co., 27 Mo.App. 62. (2) The theory upon which the issue of fraud was submitted to the jury was the correct one. There is unquestionably a direct conflict among the authorities as to whether or not a vendee must have actual knowledge of the vendor's fraudulent intent or whether constructive notice will suffice. In this state the law is settled in favor of the latter theory. Rupe v. Alkire, 77 Mo. 641; State v. Estell, 6 Mo.App. 6. The following authorities support this view: Blum v. Simpson, 66 Tex. 84; 71 Tex. 628; Hooser v. Hunt, 65 Wis. 71; Bedford v. Penny, 58 Mich. 424; Bollman v. Lucas, 22 Neb. 796; Dyer v. Taylor, 50 Ark. 314; Hoy, etc., Co. v. Turner, 85 Ala. 465; Beddenger v. Weland, 67 Md. 359; Thompson v. Duff, 19 Bradw. (Ill.) 78; Spaulding v. Adams, 63 Ia. 437; Gollober v. Martin, 33 Kan. 255; Wells v. McMahon, 18 P. 73; Moore v. Williamson, 15 A. 587; Wood v. Elliott, 7 S.W. 624; The Holladay Case, 27 F. 830; Bartles v. Gibson, 17 F. 297; Singer v. Jacobs, 11 F. 559. The text-writers also support this view: Wait on Fraud. Con. [2 Ed.] sec. 379, et seq.; Bump on Fraud. Con. [3 Ed.] pp. 201, 202; Bigelow on Fraud, pp. 386, 387; Kerr on Fraud and Mistake [2 Ed.] pp. 246, 247. Besides appellant's own instructions are framed on the same theory and he cannot now object to the form in which the issue of fraud was submitted to the jury. Bettes v. Magoon, 85 Mo. 580; Thorpe v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 650; Noble v. Blount, 77 Mo. 235; Bank v. Hammerslough, 72 Mo. 274; Smith v. Culligan, 73 Mo. 387; Loomis v. Railroad, 17 Mo.App. 340; Straat v. Hayward, 37 Mo.App. 585.

Black, J. Barclay, J., not sitting.

OPINION

[101 Mo. 605] Black, J.

-- This is a controversy over a stock of merchandise consisting of dry goods, notions, clothing, hats and caps, and boots and shoes. Adolph Lederer being the owner and in possession of the goods sold the same to Samuel Van Raalte who...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP