Anderson v. Middle States Utilities Co.
Decision Date | 09 November 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 18797.,18797. |
Citation | 98 S.W.2d 163 |
Parties | FORD B. ANDERSON, RESPONDENT, v. MIDDLE STATES UTILITIES CO., APPELLANT. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Clinton County. — Hon. R.B. Bridgeman, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).
A Glenwood Gilliland and C.H. Harrison for respondent.
W.T. Harbison and R.H. Musser for appellant.
This is an action in equity wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant for monies alleged as paid to the defendant by Mrs. Frances Anderson the duly appointed and acting curator of plaintiff, on April 10, 1930.
The evidence discloses that on said above date plaintiff was a minor and further shows that aforesaid curatrix paid to defendant by check the sum of $12,020 for certificates of stock as an investment for the plaintiff, her ward.
It appears clear that defendant had full knowledge that the investment was being made with the money of the ward, who is the plaintiff herein.
It appears that the defendant herein is a Missouri corporation. However, the certificates of the stock investment appear as issued by a corporation of the same name but the corporation is designated as a Delaware corporation.
It appears that during the minority of plaintiff dividends were collected on the stock by the curatrix and same was used to the benefit of plaintiff. When the plaintiff became of age he filed a verified petition or request in the probate court wherein he informed the court that he had reached his majority and made certain requests. This document is as follows:
At the May term, 1933, of the probate court, the curatrix made a final accounting or settlement. In said accounting or settlement is found the following:
Plaintiff in his petition in equity plead his minority prior to January 21, 1933, and further declares as to appointment of Mrs. Anderson, his mother, as guardian of his estate. Plaintiff further pleads as to the purchase of the stock, on April 1, 1930, by said guardian or curatrix and further pleads that no authority for the investment was ever obtained from the court and pleads that said investment was made in violation of chapter 1, article 16, section 418, Revised Statutes, Missouri 1929, and pleads knowledge of said fact by defendant.
The defendant answered admitting incorporation and license to do business in this State and denies as to all allegations in plaintiff's petition not specifically admitted. Defendant further answering sets out facts of plaintiff coming of age and filing by plaintiff of petition and requests that are set out above and further pleads the final settlement of curatrix and alleges plaintiff's acts joining and acquiescing in said proceedings.
Defendant, based upon above stated facts, pleads ratification and confirmation by plaintiff and invokes estoppel at law and equity.
The defendant in its answer pleads its acts as that of a Missouri corporation acting as agent of a Delaware corporation and also seeks avoidance of liability on that ground.
The printed record recites that the court found the issues for plaintiff but does not show entry of judgment. By referring to the record proper, it is shown that judgment was had and entered for plaintiff in the sum of $1434. From the judgment of the court the defendant has duly appealed.
We will continue to refer to the respondent as plaintiff and to the appellant as defendant.
The defendant makes claims of error as follows:
OPINION.Defendant's claim indicated by "g" above is based upon a contention that the certificate of stock it sold and delivered to the curatrix was that of "Middle States Utilities Company," a Delaware corporation. It appears that the defendant, "Middle States Utilities Company," is a Missouri corporation.
The distinction made does not appeal to a court of equity.
There is much strategic camouflage displayed in the idem sonans presented. A person of more business sense than the curatrix might become confused when a corporation in a middle west state, sells middle west stock in a middle west corporation of a northeastern state. With the above, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. State of Missouri
...oral testimony was incompetent. Appellants urge that the decision of the Kansas City Court of Appeals in Anderson v. Middle States Utilities Company, 231 Mo.App. 129, 98 S.W.2d 163, compels a different conclusion. We do not so understand the decision. It was there held that a minor could on......
-
State ex rel. Ellsworth v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
... ... Smith, 189 Mo. 447, 88 S.W. 86, ... 92; Greenup v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co ... (Ky.), 167 S.W. 910. (15) Ratification. rson v ... Middle States Utilities Co., 98 S.W.2d 163 ... Joseph ... K ... her and her surety at this time. Anderson v. Middle ... States Utilities Co., 98 S.W.2d 163; Mechem on Agency (2 ... ...
- Anderson v. Middle States Utilities Co.