Battel v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 28 February 1875
• Citation: 59 Mo. 215
• Parties: JAMES BATTEL, Appellant, v. WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

59 Mo. 215

JAMES BATTEL, Appellant,

v.WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1875.

Appeal from Caldwell Circuit Court.

Hill & Carter, for Appellant.

Hall & Johnson, with Murat, for Respondent.

HOUGH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The question presented by the record in this cause for the consideration of the court, is the sufficiency of the following petition: “Plaintiff states, that on or about the -- day of _______, 1864, he made defendant his agent, to safely keep and preserve for him in defendant's iron fire and burglar proof safe or otherwise, plaintiff's money; that plaintiff thereupon, then and there deposited with and delivered to defendant, as on special deposit for said purpose, the sum of $218.50; that defendant then and there received of plaintiff said sum of money, and undertook and agreed to keep and safely preserve the same as aforesaid for plaintiff, and was to return the same to plaintiff, whenever thereafter requested by plaintiff so to do; that soon thereafter, defendant, for the purpose of deceiving and misleading plaintiff, and of preventing plaintiff from the commencement of an action against him for the recovery of said money, did deceitfully, falsely and fraudulently state and represent to plaintiff and divers other persons, that he, said defendant, had been robbed by rebels and bushwhackers of said money belonging to plaintiff, and of divers other sums of money so and in like manner deposited with him by other persons; that plaintiff relied and acted upon the said false and fraudulent statements and representations, and did not discover their falsity until on or about the beginning of the year 1870, when plaintiff discovered that said defendant had not been robbed, as was stated and represented by defendant, but that he, said defendant, had wrongfully converted said money to his,--defendant's--own use and benefit. Wherefore plaintiff asks judgment against said defendant for the said sum of $218.50, and the interest thereon at ten per cent. per annum, from the -- day of _________, 1864, and costs of this action.”

To this petition the defendant answered with a general denial, and a plea of the statute of limitations, to which plea of the statute the plaintiff replied.

At the trial defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence by the plaintiff, for the reason that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which objection was by the court sustained, and all...