Barz v. Fleischmann Yeast Company
Citation | 271 S.W. 361,308 Mo. 288 |
Decision Date | 13 April 1925 |
Docket Number | 23864 |
Parties | EUGENE BARZ, Appellant, v. FLEISCHMANN YEAST COMPANY |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Motion for Rehearing Denied April 13, 1925.
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court; Hon. H. A Hamilton, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Wm R. Schneider and F. J. Hoffmeister for appellant; C. P. Berry of counsel.
(1) The court erred in excluding as to the Fleischmann Yeast Company the plaintiff's offer of proof as part of his case in chief and in rebuttal, evidence to the effect that while the plaintiff was in the delivery automobile with the defendant Faeth, the latter told the plaintiff within thirty minutes or an hour after he ran over plaintiff with the delivery automobile of the company, that before he could take plaintiff home he had a couple of orders to deliver for the company, and that then he would take him directly home. Harriman v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 96; Par v. Illinois Fire Ins. Co., 178 Mo.App. 155; McDermott v. Ry Co., 73 Mo. 516. (2) A prima-facie case of the agency of defendant Faeth for the company having been made by showing that the delivery automobile had the name Fleischmann Yeast Company on it, and that Faeth was on the day of the accident, and prior and subsequent thereto, in the employment of the company, the admissions of the agent became admissible to prove his agency, and the court erred in excluding, as to the company, the evidence mentioned in Point 1 and offered as part of the plaintiff's case in chief and in rebuttal. A prima-facie case is established. Guthrie v. Holmes, 272 Mo. 215; O'Malley v. Const. Co., 255 Mo. 386; Gordon v. Bleeck Auto Co., 233 S.W. 265. Admissions of an agent are admissible to prove agency after prima-facie case is made. Peck v. Richey, 66 Mo. 118; Werth v. Ollis, 61 Mo.App. 407; Oil Well Supply Co. v. Metcalf, 174 Mo.App. 560; State ex rel. v. Henderson, 86 Mo.App. 482; Stenson v. Lancaster, 178 Mo.App. 346; Wharton v. Tierney-Toner Co., 217 P. 998. (3) The court erred in instructing the jury that "under the law and the evidence your verdict must be for the defendant Fleischmann Yeast Company." Plaintiff, having made a prima-facie case and more against the company, was entitled to have his case submitted to the jury as to the company. Lafferty v. Kansas City Cas. Co., 229 S.W. 750; Geiselman v. Schmidt, 106 Md. 586; Kunst v. Bullock, 59 Wash. 141; Williams v. Ludwig Floral Co., 252 Pa. 140; Edgeworth v. Wood, 58 N. J. L. 463; Schulte v. Holliday, 54 Mich. 73; Seaman v. Koehler, 122 N.Y. 646; Ferris v. Sterling, 214 N.Y. 252; Purdy v. Sherman, 74 Wash. 309; Vernarelli v. Sweikert, 213 P. 482.
Boyle & Priest and G. T. Priest for respondent.
The court properly excluded evidence as to what defendant Faeth, about an hour after the transaction, said he was going to do. First, because there was no evidence showing that the defendant Faeth was an agent to make any such statement on behalf of the Fleischmann Yeast Company; secondly, because it was hearsay. (1) It has been firmly established that an agency cannot be established by statements of the agent. The attempt to elicit testimony as to what Faeth said he was going to do was, of course, attempting to establish Faeth's agency by Faeth's statement. For this reason alone the court properly excluded it. (2) The court properly excluded it because it was hearsay. The evidence sought to be elicited relative to what Faeth had said was a statement which had no connection with the past transaction, the accident itself, but was simply a statement as to future intention of Faeth, what he was going to do in the future, wasn't a part of the res gestae, because it had no reference to the actual transaction itself, and was too remote in point of time.
OPINION
Plaintiff sued the Fleischmann Yeast Company and Joseph Faeth for damages in the sum of $ 15,000 for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on April 9, 1919, by being run over by a Ford delivery truck owned and operated by the defendants. The case was tried February 7, 1922. At the close of the evidence the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for Fleischmann Yeast Company, and judgment was rendered accordingly, from which plaintiff appealed. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff against Faeth for $ 3,000.
As plaintiff was walking across Clark Avenue at the intersection of Ninth Street in the city of St. Louis at about noon on April 9, 1919, he was knocked down and run over by a Ford delivery truck owned by respondent and driven by Faeth. Respondent's name was emblazoned on the side of the truck. Plaintiff lay unconscious on the pavement and was picked up by Faeth and a policeman and driven in the truck to a near-by dispensary, where he recovered consciousness. Faeth and the policeman then took plaintiff in the truck to a police station, where Faeth agreed to drive plaintiff to his home. This was within thirty minutes or an hour after the accident. Faeth, however, started in the opposite direction. Plaintiff asked him where he was going. Faeth replied "I am going to make some deliveries." On motion of the respondent this answer was stricken out, over plaintiff's exception, as hearsay and not a part of the res gestae. Whereupon plaintiff's counsel offered to prove by plaintiff that within thirty minutes or an hour after the accident Faeth stated to him that before he would take the plaintiff home he had a couple of orders to deliver for the Fleischmann Yeast Company and that he would then take him home. This offer was excluded by the court. Plaintiff further testified he was about one-third of the way across the street when he was struck; that he did not see the truck, nor hear a horn. He also testified as to his injuries.
Jule Quick testified:
For the defendants, Joseph Faeth testified:
On cross-examination:
Harvey Stevens testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cotton v. Ship-by-Truck Co.
...v. Crandall, 319 Mo. 87, 5 S.W. (2d) 386; Zimmerman v. Schwerzler, 35 S.W. (2d) 381; Peck v. Ritchey, 66 Mo. 119; Barz v. Fleischmann Yeast Co., 308 Mo. 288, 271 S.W. 364; State v. Daues, 323 Mo. 388, 19 S.W. (2d) 707. (b) The name Ship-By-Truck Company on the truck was evidence of Hartz' e......
-
Cotton v. Ship-By-Truck Co.
... ... 270 Eugene F. Cotton, Appellant, v. Ship-By-Truck Company and Edward Hartz Supreme Court of Missouri July 10, 1935 ... [85 ... Schwerzler, 35 S.W.2d 381; Peck v. Ritchey, 66 ... Mo. 119; Barz v. Fleischmann Yeast Co., 308 Mo. 288, ... 271 S.W. 364; State v ... ...
-
Scott v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
... ... 374 Harry S. Scott and the Travelers Insurance Company v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant No ... Fleming, 285 ... S.W. 708; Woods v. Railroad, 8 S.W.2d 922; Barz ... v. Fleischmann Yeast Co., 271 S.W. 361, 308 Mo. 288; ... May v ... ...
-
Hampe v. Versen
... ... jury to determine. Warren v. Company, 196 S.W. 1030; ... Kelly v. City, 177 S.W. 966; Cases cited supra, ... Ever since the ... decisions in the cases of Barz v. Fleischmann Yeast ... Co., 308 Mo. 288, 271 S.W. 361, and Rockwell ... ...