Barnes v. Baker

• Decision Date: 04 October 1927
• Docket Number: No. 19839.,19839.
• Citation: 299 S.W. 80
• Parties: BARNES v. BAKER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

299 S.W. 80

BARNES v. BAKER.

No. 19839.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

October 4, 1927.

Rehearing Denied October 25, 1927.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Victor H. Falkenhainer, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Proceeding in the probate court by Francis M. Barnes, Jr., against Henry A. Baker, guardian of the person and estate of John George Brandt, Jr., a person of unsound mind, to recover for services rendered. On appeal to the circuit court and a de novo hearing, a judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Anderson, Gilbert & Wolfort and Edwin W. Lee, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

John P. Leahy and John V. Lee, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

BENNICK, C.

This proceeding originated as a claim against the estate of John George Brandt, Jr., a person of unsound mind, filed in the probate court of the city of St. Louis, on March 3, 1924, by plaintiff, a physician specializing in the treatment of mental diseases. A motion to make the same more definite and certain was filed by defendant, and sustained by the court, whereupon an amended claim was filed, alleging, in substance, that the sum of $25,000 was due claimant for professional services rendered to John George Brandt, Jr., Mrs. Myrtle Brandt, his wife, and Cornelia Brandt, a daughter, and for testimony given in the insanity proceedings theretofore held in the probate court, all of which services had been rendered at the special instance and request, and under the authority of the said Myrtle Brandt.

Subsequently a motion to strike such amended claim from the files was filed by defendant, and sustained by the court, on December 15, 1924, at the December, 1924, term thereof. Four days later plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, set aside, and vacate the order striking the amended claim from the files, and to grant him a new trial thereon, which motion was overruled by the court on December 22, 1924. Thereafter, and on the same day, plaintiff, by his attorney, announced that he would offer no proof on his claim whereupon it was adjudged by the court that plaintiff take nothing by his suit, and that defendant go hence without day. From such judgment, disallowing plaintiff's claim for failure to offer proof, and overruling his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed to the circuit court.

In the latter court, after a trial of the issues involved, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $5,000, and from the judgment rendered thereon defendant has appealed.

From July 1, 1916, to September 1, 1921, plaintiff was medical director at Glenwood Sanatorium, an institution located near Kirkwood, Mo., for the care of patients afflicted with mental diseases. It was in this connection that he became acquainted with John George Brandt, Jr., who was sent to the sanatorium in June, 1917, to receive treatment for dementia praecox. Brandt, however, was not legally adjudged to be of unsound mind until September, 1923.

The claim which is involved In this controversy grows out of a contract which was made on or about January 18, 1919, between plaintiff and Mrs. Myrtle Brandt, whereby the latter employed plaintiff to study and give particular attention to her husband's case, over and beyond that which was ordinarily accorded to patients in the sanatorium. Plaintiff testified that she informed him that there was no money with which he could be paid, but that eventually her husband would inherit an estate, at which time he would be compensated for the special services which he was to render. In compliance with this agreement, plaintiff saw the patient at least three times a week, until September 1, 1921, on which date plaintiff's contract with the sanatorium expired. After such date he did not see the patient again but nevertheless continued rendering services in his behalf by conferring and advising with Mrs. Brandt regarding her husband's condition, until September, 1923. Plaintiff also testified that, from August 23, 1920, to July 15, 1923, he treated Mrs. Brandt personally, made one examination of the daughter, Cornelia, and advised with the mother on many other occasions with reference to the daughter's condition. There was evidence that, for all of the services rendered, the sum of $25,000 was a reasonable charge.

The first point urged by defendant is that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to hear the case for the alleged reasons: First, that there had been no order or judgment in the probate court from which an appeal could be taken; and, second, that there was no pleading before the circuit court from which the issues involved could be determined. Briefly, the argument is that, inasmuch as plaintiff's claim had been ordered stricken from the files in the probate court, there remained no claim pending before that court which could be the subject of disallowance; and, furthermore, that, even if it should be held that the appeal was otherwise properly taken inasmuch as plaintiff filed no amended claim in the circuit court after the case reached that tribunal for hearing anew, there was nothing before the circuit court for determination.

This contention, while novel and ingenious, in our opinion is supported neither by law nor by justice. At the outset, we confess that we are unable to comprehend the drastic ruling of the probate court in striking plaintiff's...