Beck v. Pollard

• Citation: 55 Mo. 26
• Parties: JOHN G. BECK, Respondent, v. HENRY POLLARD, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

55 Mo. 26

JOHN G. BECK, Respondent,

v.HENRY POLLARD, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1874.

Appeal from Moniteau Circuit Court.

Durham and Sangree, for Respondent.

Crandall and Sinnet, for Appellant.

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought by a justice of the peace, to recover eighty-six dollars, on account of some flour sold by the firm of Puckett & Pollard, against Pollard, one of said firm. The plaintiff obtained a judgment and an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court.

The facts about which there was no dispute, seem to have been, that the plaintiff engaged in the business of buying and selling wheat at Dresden, a small town on the Pacific R. R. of about 250 inhabitants; and, living himself in the country, about four miles distant from the town, he made one Schu, his agent, to attend to this business. In 1868, Pollard, the defendant, engaged in the mercantile business in Dresden, in copartnership with Puckett, under the firm name of Puckett & Pollard. In December of that year the flour referred to in the account was left with said firm, for sale on commission by Schu. This flour was the proceeds of wheat owned by the plaintiff, and his agent Schu was directed to have it ground and the flour sold by some merchant, at a specified price with a commission of 50 cents a sack. It was sold; and this suit brought to recover the amount of the sales minus the commission.

Up to this point, there was no dispute about the facts. The defendant insisted, however, that the proceeds were accounted for by paying drafts drawn by Schu on his individual account; and by a bill of merchandise, he had bought of the firm; and further, that upon the proposed dissolution of the firm, they had sent for Schu and offered to pay him in money for the flour, but that he preferred transferring the claim to Pollard, the defendant, who had bought out Puckett, and that in this way the debt for the flour was extinguished. The plaintiff claimed that the firm of Puckett & Pollard well understood that the flour was his, and did not belong to Schu, and of course they could not extinguish the debt by any allowance to Schu on his individual indebtedness. And this was really the point in dispute. It was a question of fact for a jury or for the court, if the parties chose to waive a jury.

It is useless, in our view of the case, to state the evidence. Three or four witnesses clearly proved that the defendant knew the flour belonged to plaintiff...