Albers v. Moffitt

• Decision Date: 02 November 1915
• Docket Number: No. 10451.,10451.
• Parties: ALBERS v. MOFFITT et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

187 S.W. 903

ALBERS v. MOFFITT et al.

No. 10451.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 2, 1915.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1916.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; O'Neill Ryan, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by C. H. Albers against Nat. L. Moffitt and others. From a decree for respondents, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Barclay, Shields & Fauntleroy and Barclay & Wallace, all of St. Louis, for appellant. Richard A. Jones, of St. Louis, for respondents.

ALLEN, J.

This is a suit in equity. The appeal now before us, viz., that of plaintiff from a decree dismissing his bill as to certain defendants, was originally taken to this court, but the cause was transferred to the Supreme Court upon the theory that that court had jurisdiction thereof. The Supreme Court held otherwise and retransferred the case here. See Albers v. Moffitt, 262 Mo. 645, 172 S. W. 11, from which we quote the following statement, by Bond, J.:

"There were two appeals in this case, both primarily to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. One was taken by the Merchants' Exchange from that portion of a decree of the trial court which enjoined it from enforcing a resolution suspending plaintiff, C. H. Albers, for a definite period from any and all privileges of the Board of Trade conducted by the Merchants' Exchange. The other appeal was taken by said Albers from that portion of the same decree of the trial court which dismissed his suit as to the individual defendants. These two cross-appeals were pending in the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and one of them, that taken by the Merchants' Exchange, was disposed of in 140 Mo. App. 446 . The other appeal, as is shown by a file mark on the record before us, was on March 30, 1909, transferred to this court, on the motion of the respondents, for the following reason: `Because the amount involved is more than $4,500.' This latter appeal was argued and submitted in this court on the 19th day of October, 1914 (at its October term). Other phases of this controversy have been before this court: C. H. Albers Com. Co. v. Spencer, 205 Mo. 105 [103 S. W. 523, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1003]; Id., 245 Mo. 368 .

"The substance of the petition culminating in the judgment from which these two cross-appeals were taken is that C. H. Albers, plaintiff, on behalf of the Albers Commission Company, of which he was president, entered into contract with the defendant, Moffitt, on behalf of the Commission Company, of which he was likewise president, for the sale for future delivery of certain grain, such contracts to mature and delivery to be made before the 31st of December, 1903; that to secure his engagement about $20,000 was put up with said purchaser as a margin; that thereafter said purchaser formed a secret agreement with his codefendants, Spencer & Milliken, to `forestall the market in wheat in St. Louis,' to the end that said Spencer & Milliken should be able to dictate the price of wheat in transactions upon the Board of Trade; that for this purpose the grain contracts executed by plaintiff had been transferred to said Spencer & Milliken, in order to assist them in their conspiracy to corner the wheat market; that thereafter, to wit, March, 1904, the said Hubbard & Moffitt Commission Company returned to plaintiff the sum of $1,790.25, being the amount of difference between the contract price of the grain which plaintiff had agreed to sell them, and the `fictitious price of 92 cents per bushel,' which the defendants (Spencer & Milliken and Hubbard & Moffitt Commission Company) by means of their corner of the market had created and fixed for the price of said grain on and before December 31, 1903; that when this was done, plaintiff refused to return to said Hubbard & Moffitt the reciprocal paper memoranda evidencing the original contracts of purchase of said grain executed at the time by the said Moffitt & Co.; that for such refusal the defendant Merchants' Exchange passed a resolution suspending him from the privileges of membership in that body; that said resolution was invalid. The prayer of plaintiff's petition is, to wit: `Wherefore, the premises considered, plaintiff prays the court to enjoin and restrain said Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis from further enforcing said resolution or order of suspension of plaintiff and that said order or resolution be canceled and decreed to be void, and...