Seehorn v. Hall

Citation130 Mo. 257,32 S.W. 643
PartiesSEEHORN et al. v. HALL et al.
Decision Date07 November 1895
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; John W. Henry, Judge.

Action by Thomas J. Seehorn, as administrator, and another, against William A. Hall and others, for money had and received. Plaintiffs had judgment, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Chas. H. Nearing, for appellants. Warner, Dean, Gibson & McLeod, for respondents.

MACFARLANE, J.

Plaintiff Seehorn, as administrator of P. T. Scruggs, and Mortimer Dearing, prosecute this suit against William A. Hall and Nathan J. Hall, the object of which is to recover one-half of a commission received by defendants for effecting a sale of a cattle ranch in the state of Colorado. The petition charged and the evidence tended to prove, in substance, the following facts: Defendants were engaged as partners in the cattle business in Kansas City. One James Wilcox lived in Trinidad, Colo., and was the owner of a cattle ranch, consisting of land and cattle, which was located about 30 miles from Trinidad. At this time (October, 1883) one Barillo and defendants had an option for the purchase of this ranch for the sum of $225,000. This option was held with a view of selling the property to others, and the time limited had about expired. Plaintiffs desired to purchase a ranch, and, hearing that defendants had this one for sale, went to see them with a view of purchasing. After being informed by defendants that the property could be brought for $225,000, and no less, plaintiffs and one of the defendants went to Colorado for the purpose of examining the property. They, with Wilcox, the owner, spent several days in making such examination. Afterwards plaintiffs, defendants, and Barillo entered into an agreement that they would together purchase the property, on the best terms possible; plaintiffs each to take one-fourth, Barillo one-fourth, and defendants, as partners, one-fourth, thereof. Under this agreement, the purchase was made for the sum of $225,000, each agreeing to pay one-fourth of the purchase price, — one-third in cash, and the balance on time. The cash payments were made and one-fourth of the property was conveyed to each as agreed. Prior to the consummation of this contract, the purchasers agreed verbally among themselves that, if they made the purchase, they would hold and manage the property as partners, each to have a one-fourth interest therein. After the purchase, a written partnership agreement was made. Immediately on the conclusion of the purchase, Wilcox, in pursuance of a previous agreement, paid defendants and Barillo about $9,000, by way of commission for making the sale, which was divided equally between them. Plaintiffs were not informed that a commission was to be paid, or that it had been paid, until long after the sale had been consummated, but believed they were purchasing on the best terms that could be obtained. The suit is to recover from defendants one-half the sum so paid them by Wilcox.

The court gave the jury this instruction: "If the jury find from the evidence that defendants represented to plaintiffs that the property in question could be purchased at the price of $225,000, and no less, and agreed with plaintiffs to join them and Barillo in purchasing the same at that price, and the sale was consummated at that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Nat. Plumbing Supply Co. v. Torretti et al.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 7, 1943
    ......Seehorn v. Hall, 130 Mo. 257, 32 S.W. 643, 51 Am. St. Rep. 562; Clark v. Rogers Foundry & Mfg. Co. (Mo. App.), 199 S.W. 576; State ex rel. v. Public Service ......
  • Denny v. Guyton, 28922.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 27, 1931
    ......Seehorn v. Hall, 130 Mo. 257; Knapp v. Hanley, 108 Mo. App. 353; Berry v. Colburn, 65 Va. 493; Wannell v. Kem, 57 Mo. 492; Ball v. Grismore, 210 Mo. App. 26; ......
  • Denny v. Guyton, 32372.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 31, 1932
    ....... December 31, 1932. . [57 S.W.2d 416] .         Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge. .         MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. .          James A. Reed, J.M. Johnson, I.N. Watson, J.P. Aylward, Donald W. Johnson, ...(2d) 590; Wootton Land & Fuel Co. v. Ownbey, 265 Fed. 100; Rutherford v. Williams, 42 Mo. 18; King v. Moon, 42 Mo. 551; 33 C.J. 851; Seehorn v. Hall, 130 Mo. 257; Knapp v. Hanley, 108 Mo. App. 353; Parish v. Casner, 282 S.W. 412; Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 542; 1 Perry on Trusts, sec. 166; 3 ......
  • State ex rel. Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 32768.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 4, 1935
    ......819.] "Whether an agency exists, under an ascertained state of facts, is a question of law to be determined by the court." [Seehorn v. Hall, 130 Mo. 257, l.c. 262, 32 S.W. 643.] "The person alleging the existence of an agency must bear the burden of establishing the fact." [21 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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