Bedell v. Richardson Lubricating Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13744.,No. 13745.,13744.,13745.
• Citation: 226 S.W. 653
• Parties: BEDELL v. RICHARDSON LUBRICATING CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

226 S.W. 653

BEDELL v. RICHARDSON LUBRICATING CO. et al.

No. 13744.

No. 13745.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 8, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chariton County; Arch B. Davis, Special Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Two actions, one by R. K. Bedell against the Richardson Lubricating Company and others on a supersedeas bond, and the other by the Richardson Lubricating Company against R. K. Bedell, for injunction. From judgment for Bedell, the other parties appeal. Affirmed.

See, also, 201 Mo. App. 251, 211 S. W. 104.

J. A. Collet and Roy McKittrick, both of Salisbury, for appellants.

J. D. Taylor, of Keytesville, U. A. House, of Sumner, and O. F. Libby, of Laclede, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

The controversy involved in

these suits arose as the result of the fact

that there are two corporations of similar name, one, the Richardson Lubricating Company, incorporated under the laws of the state of Illinois, and the other, the Richardson Lubricating Company of Missouri, incorporated under the laws of the state of Missouri. The relationship of these two companies was apparently close; both were engaged in the business of selling and distributing petroleum and petroleum products. The Illinois corporation purchased such products from the Missouri corporation. The Illinois corporation had offices in Quincy, Ill., and the financial business of the Missouri corporation was transacted there. E. D. Richardson was president of the Missouri corporation and had an interest in the Illinois corporation. A. A. Richardson, his brother, was president of the Illinois corporation. E. D. and A. A. Richardson officed in the same building in Quincy, Ill. The Illinois corporation had no office or agent in Missouri. When the Missouri corporation was formed, it had 345 shares of stock and all but 5 shares were owned by E. D. Richardson and E. D. Richardson as trustee for A. A. Richardson, John T. Richardson, and M. B. Richardson. Presumably all of the Richardsons are brothers.

In 1907 the Richardson Lubricating Company of Missouri had an employee and agent, one R. K. Bedell, located at Sumner, Chariton county, Mo. On October 10th of that year it wrote a letter, dated Quincy, Ill., and signed by its president, to Bedell accusing him of embezzling some of its funds. At the February term, 1918, of the circuit court of Chariton county Bedell sued the "Richardson Lubricating Company, a corporation," and E. D. Richardson for libel, and alleged that the defendant company was a corporation under the laws of the state of Missouri. The cause of action was founded upon the said letter written to Bedell. The petition stated that the letter was sent to plaintiff through the United States mail, addressed to him and received by him at the post office in Sumner, Mo. Service of the petition was had upon an agent of the Missouri corporation, the return showing service on the "Richardson Lubricating Company, a corporation," in Audrain county, but defendant made default. A jury was impaneled and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $3,000. Thereafter an agent of the defendant, one Korns, filed a motion to set aside the judgment, which was overruled. Execution was issued, and the property of the Missouri corporation levied upon. Defendant filed a motion to quash the execution, which was likewise overruled. Thereupon a petition for writ of error was sued out in this court, and a supersedeas bond given by the "Richardson Lubricating Company, a corporation," and J. A. Collet and Roy McKittrick as sureties. Upon a hearing of the cause the judgment of the trial court was by this court affirmed. Bedell v. Richardson Lubricating Co., 201 Mo. App. 251, 211 S. W. 104.

Thereafter plaintiff, Bedell, instituted suit upon the bond against the "Richardson Lubricating Company," alleging it to be a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, and J. A. Collet and Roy McKittrick as sureties. Whereupon the "Richardson Lubricating Company" brought suit in the circuit court of Chariton county to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment against it. The petition in the latter case alleged that plaintiff therein was a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois, and that defendant therein had brought suit against said plaintiff for libel, charging that the said plaintiff was a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, and that E. D. Richardson was its president, and that said defendant was its agent in charge of its substation in Chariton county, Mo.; that said "Richardson Lubricating Company" by its president, E. D. Richardson, caused to be written and sent through the mails a letter received by said defendant at Sumner, Mo., charging said defendant with the crime of embezzlement.

The petition then alleges the facts concerning the service of the petition and summons, the default judgment, the motion to set aside judgment, the suing out of the execution, the motion to quash the execution, suing out of the writ of error, the execution of the appeal bond, the affirmance of the judgment, and that as the result of the rendition of the judgment plaintiff in the injunction suit stood subjected to pay the defendant in that suit the sum of $3,000, with interest and costs, "whereas in truth and in fact this plaintiff is not indebted to this defendant in any sum whatsoever." The petition then alleges that the allegations of the petition in the libel case were false and untrue and known to be such by the defendant ; that the "Richardson Lubricating Company" had never maintained a substation in the town of Sumner, had never employed the defendant, had never had any correspondence with him, all of which the defendant knew at the time of the filing of his suit, and that defendant and his attorneys knew when the summons was directed to the sheriff of Audrain county, Mo., that service was not made upon plaintiff, and knew that the return of the sheriff showing service upon the "Richardson Lubricating Company" was false and untrue; that the testimony upon which plaintiff obtained judgment in the libel case was untrue; and that "by the fraudulent concoction as aforesaid...