Ackley v. Staehlin

• Decision Date: 31 March 1874
• Parties: ELI ACKLEY, et al., Appellants, v. CHRISTIAN STAEHLIN, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

56 Mo. 558

ELI ACKLEY, et al., Appellants,

v.CHRISTIAN STAEHLIN, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1874.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Henderson & Shields, for Appellants.

I. This is not a case of conflicting testimony, but one where the verdict is directly contrary to all the evidence. In such cases, the Supreme Court will consider the evidence and reverse the judgment. (Dedo vs. White, 50 Mo., 241; State, ex rel., Nicholson, vs. Rombauer, 44 Mo., 590, 595; State vs. Burnside, 37 Mo., 343, 346; Morris vs. Barnes, 35 Mo., 412; Hartt vs. Leavenworth, 11 Mo., 629; Hayneman vs. Garneau, 33 Mo., 565; Blumenthal vs. Torini, 40 Mo., 159; Meyer vs. Pacific R. R., Id. 151; Baker vs. Stonebraker's Adm'r, 36 Mo., 338, 345.)

II. In support of the instructions, and the view of the court below on the law, we cite: Dob vs. Halsey, 16 Johns., 34; Yale vs. Yale, 13 Conn., 185, 190; Hickman vs. Reineking, 6 Black., 387; Lanier vs. McCabe, 2 Fla., 32; Daniel vs. Daniel, 9 B. Mon., 195-6; Bourne vs. Woolbridge, 10 B. Mon., 493; Rogers vs. Batchelor, 12 Pet., 229; Brewster vs. Mott, 5 Ill., 378; Purdy vs. Powers, 6 Barr., 492; Minor vs. Gow., 11 S. & M., 322, 324; Noble vs. McClintock, 2 Watts & S., 152, 155; Burrell vs Springfield, 15 Ala., 274; Pierce vs. Pass, 1 Porter, 232; 2 Bailey, 133; Jones' Case, Overton, 455; Flanagan vs. Alexander, 50 Mo., 51.

Jecko & Hospes, for Respondent.

I. The only issues in the case were issues of facts, and they were fairly tried under instructions most favorable to the plaintiffs; and it is well settled that this court will not interfere in such cases, particularly where the judge at nisi prius refuses to interfere. It was a case where the jury might fairly have weighed the evidence, and decided one way or another, and it could not have been said of them, that the verdict was against the evidence.

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action for $1193.65, alleged to be due from defendant to plaintiffs, for sundry bales of hops sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant.

The petition alleges that the plaintiffs were hop merchants, doing business at Waterville, in the State of New York, and as such, sold and shipped to the defendant the hops in question, an account of which is inserted in the petition.

The answer denies that the defendant bought any hops of the plaintiffs. The answer further alleges, that Eli Ackley, one of the plaintiffs, was largely indebted to the defendant, and agreed to furnish him hops in payment of such debt, which the defendant agreed to accept, and that the said Eli Ackley did furnish him the quantity of hops mentioned in the petition, and of the value therein mentioned, in part payment of his indebtedness to defendant, which delivery is the alleged sale and delivery mentioned in plaintiffs' petition; that defendant did not know, nor did he have any means of ascertaining, whether or not the plaintiff, Yale, was a partner of said Ackley, or whether said Yale had any interest in the hops so delivered; and defendant denied that he became indebted to the plaintiffs, as co-partners or otherwise, in said sum of $1193.65, or in any other sum.

The plaintiffs filed a replication, denying the new matter set up in the reply, and denying that the plaintiff, Eli Ackley, had any authority to appropriate the property of the firm composed of plaintiffs to his individual debts, and charging that the firm of Ackley & Yale were insolvent, not having assets sufficient to pay their debts.

The case was submitted to a jury for trial. The plaintiffs introduced evidence to prove their account. The evidence proved that the hops delivered to the defendant, were shipped to him from Waterville, N. Y., as the property of and in the firm name of plaintiffs, and all of the hops sold and shipped belonged to the plaintiffs, as co-partners, except two bales which belonged to the plaintiff, Yale, individually, and these two bales were withdrawn from the jury by an instruction given for plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also proved that the plaintiff, Yale, had no knowledge of the alleged arrangement made by Ackley with defendant, to furnish hops for his private indebtedness, and never consented thereto.

The evidence showed that the defendant received the hops under the arrangement he had made with Ackley, one of the partners of Ackley & Yale, for and on account of the private debt due him from Ackley, and that he had no knowledge at that time, that the hops belonged to the plaintiffs as co-partners. The evidence also showed that the firm of Ackley & Yale were insolvent, and the whole of their assets were not sufficient to pay their debts.

These were subtantially the facts, as presented to the jury. The...