Bell ex rel. Davidson v. Glover

• Decision Date: 30 November 1825
• Citation: 1 Mo. 573
• Parties: BELL TO USE OF DAVIDSON, v. GLOVER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 Mo. 573

BELL TO USE OF DAVIDSON,

v.GLOVER.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November Term, 1825.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY.

TOMPKINS, J.

On 23d August, 1823, Bell sued Glover, on a note for $646 29, and summoned Paul and Ingram as garnishees. Brown and Ross interpleaded, and claimed $248, which Ingram admitted to be in his hands, belonging to Glover. Judgment against Brown and Ross, interpleaders, and to reverse this judgment they come here. From the bill of exceptions, saved on the trial, it appears that in 1821 the interpleaders consigned to Wahrendorff a quantity of brandy to be sold, and that some time in the same year Glover applied to Wahrendorff for the brandy, and presented to him a letter from Brown and Ross, introducing him, Glover, as their agent, and requesting Wahrendorff to deliver the brandy to Glover. Wahrendorff delivered it accordingly. It was further proved, that in 1821 Glover admitted he had sold part of the brandy to Bennet and Waddle, or to Waddle and Ramsey. Brown and Ross then offered in evidence a receipt in these words, viz: St. Louis, October 27th, 1821. Received of Samuel Glover, Bennet and Waddle's order for $248, for collection; also, Thos. W. Thruston's note for $82 30, which, when paid, we promise to pay to him or to his order. (Signed), Paul & Ingram, by Henry Reily. (Reily was their clerk). Reily also proved that Glover had never demanded the money; and Wahrendorff proved that this receipt was put into his hands in the autumn of 1822 by Brown and Ross, and that he was requested to call on Paul and Ingram for the money, and that he did demand it before the commencement of this suit. Letters of Brown and Ross, in which they assert their claim to this money, were offered in evidence. The counsel for the plaintiff applied to the court to instruct the jury that admissions of Glover, in 1821, and the receipt and letters of the interpleaders, were inadmissible as evidence, and the court gave the instructions. It is most clear, that the admissions of Glover would have been admissible had he been defendant in an action brought against him for money had and received, after Brown and Ross had proved he had received this money; and will it be contended that Bell, by attaching this money in the hands of Paul and Ingram, and thereby forcing Brown and Ross to interplead, shall deprive them of such evidence as would have availed them had they sued Glover? This action is, in effect, a suit by Brown and Ross against ...