Bank of Raymondville v. National Safe & Lock Co.

• Decision Date: 15 April 1916
• Docket Number: No. 1769.,1769.
• Citation: 184 S.W. 1176
• Parties: BANK OF RAYMONDVILLE v. NATIONAL SAFE & LOCK CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

184 S.W. 1176

BANK OF RAYMONDVILLE v. NATIONAL SAFE & LOCK CO.

No. 1769.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 15, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Texas County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Action by the Bank of Raymondville against the National Safe & Lock Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

George H. Billman, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Hiett & Scott, of Houston, Mo., for appellant. Lamar & Lamar and Jas. H. Covert, all of Houston, Mo., for respondent.

FARRINGTON, J.

The plaintiff bank recovered a judgment against the John Bauman Safe Company and the National Safe & Lock Company in the circuit court, and the last-mentioned defendant appealed.

The only question for our determination is: Did the circuit court commit reversible error in refusing the appealing defendant a continuance?

The plaintiff filed its petition on June 11, 1915 (and to avoid repetition we remark here that all dates mentioned in this opinion fall within the year 1915), praying for damages by reason of an alleged breach of contract. On June 13th the summons in the suit was served on the appealing defendant's agent in St. Louis, Mo., commanding said defendant to appear in the circuit court of Texas county and answer on the third Monday in August. On July 5th the appellant filed its answer with the clerk of the circuit court of Texas county; said answer being signed by George Billman, the attorney who afterwards sought a continuance. So far as the record shows nothing else transpired between the parties, nor was any move made by the appellant or its attorney until August 11th when Billman sent a telegram to the attorneys for plaintiff requesting a continuance, which was answered by plaintiff's attorneys on the same day advising Billman that plaintiff would insist on a trial. And on August 11th Billman wrote a letter to plaintiff's attorneys asking when the case would be set for trial, and stated that it would be necessary to take some depositions in Cleveland, Ohio, which was the place where appellant's home office was located and the home of its attorney, Billman. On August 16th plaintiff's attorneys wired Billman — which was in answer to a telegram from him — that they would insist on a trial on August 19th, and on the same day wrote Billman a letter to this effect. On that day (August 16th), after receiving the telegram just referred to, Billman wrote a letter begging for a continuance, and on August 18th sent another telegram asking that the trial be postponed. On August 17th Billman wrote to the law firm of Hiett & Scott at Houston, Mo., confirming a telegram he had sent them the evening before employing them in the case and insisting that they secure a continuance of the case. Mr. Scott of the firm of Hiett & Scott made an application for a continuance, merely stating therein what his belief was with reference to the facts set forth in the application from the letter and telegram received from Billman to his firm. The motion for a continuance was denied, and the plaintiff put in its evidence and the court rendered judgment in plaintiff's favor for $1,030. It may be added that the John Bauman Safe Company, the defendant not appealing, made default, and that the appealing defendant, so far as this record shows,...