LeGg v. Johnson

Citation23 Mo.App. 590
PartiesJEROME B. LEGG, Appellant, v. J. H. JOHNSON, Respondent.
Decision Date07 December 1886
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, SHEPARD BARCLAY, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

TAYLOR & POLLARD, for the appellant: A contradiction between two instructions, so far from correcting the evils of either, multiplies them both. Turner v. Babb, 45 Mo. 387; Henshen v. O'Bannon, 56 Mo. 289; Goetz v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 472; The State v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191; The State v. Nauert, 2 Mo. App. 295; Stevenson v. Hancock, 72 Mo. 614; Price v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 512; The State v. Simms, 68 Mo. 309; Staples v. Town of Canton, 69 Mo. 594.

BOYLE, ADAMS & MCKEIGHAN, for the respondent.

ROMBAUER, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The main controversy of fact in this cause is, whether the defendant in certain transactions involving the purchase of property by the plaintiff, acted as a vendor principal, or as the plaintiff's agent.

The petition charges, in substance, that the defendant fraudulently represented to the plaintiff that certain mining property in which he, the defendant, was interested as co-owner, was of great value, and that owing to the need of some of the other owners of the property, their interests in this and some adjoining property could be bought at a very low figure. That if the plaintiff would buy out one of such part owners the defendant would buy out another, and attend to all negotiations of purchase without any cost to the plaintiff. That the defendant further falsely represented that twenty-five hundred dollars was the lowest price at which either of such co-owners would sell, and upon such representations obtained from the plaintiff twenty-five hundred dollars to complete the purchase, but instead of so using said money, used only one thousand dollars, which was all that was required for the contemplated purchase, and thus by fraud and false representations, obtained fifteen hundred dollars of the plaintiff's money. The plaintiff asks judgment for said sum and interest. The answer is a general denial.

The record states, that the plaintiff, to sustain the issues upon his part, adduced evidence tending to prove each and every averment of fact contained in his petition, and the defendant, upon his part, gave evidence tending to controvert such averments of fact, and that there was evidence tending to prove all the facts submitted in the several instructions to the jury.

There was judgment for the defendant, and the only error complained of is the misdirection of the jury by the court.

At the instance of the plaintiff the court instructed the jury as follows:

“If you find from the evidence that, prior to the date of the paper read in evidence of January 11, 1884, the defendant verbally agreed with the plaintiff to act for the plaintiff in endeavoring to buy for the plaintiff a certain interest in the mines mentioned in evidence, and that the defendant represented to the plaintiff that such purchase would require twenty-five hundred dollars to obtain the interest of Noone, and did obtain of the plaintiff that sum for that purpose, and that the defendant in fact purchased said interest of said Noone for one thousand dollars, and did not account to the plaintiff for said difference, but caused the same to be conveyed to the plaintiff, and retained the said twenty-five hundred dollars, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff for the sum of fifteen hundred dollars.”

At the instance of the defendant, the court gave, among others, the following instruction:

“2. The court instructs the jury that, if they believe and find from the evidence, that by the transaction in question, between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant sold and conveyed, or caused to be conveyed to the said plaintiff, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Bennett v. St. Louis Car Roofing Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 7, 1886
  • Legg v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 7, 1886
    ...23 Mo.App. 590 JEROME B. LEGG, Appellant, v. J. H. JOHNSON, Respondent. Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.December 7, APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, SHEPARD BARCLAY, Judge. Reversed and remanded. TAYLOR & POLLARD, for the appellant: A contradiction between two instructions, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT