Belt v. Goode

Citation31 Mo. 128
PartiesBELT et al., Appellants, v. GOODE, Respondent.
Decision Date31 October 1860
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

1. Where a contract is by parol, it is for the jury to determine as a question of fact the terms used and their meaning, if obscure, or equivocal or susceptible of explanation from extrinsic evidence; the effect of such agreement, when its terms are given and their meaning fixed, is a question of law for the court.

2. Instructions calculated to mislead, by reason of being equivocal or ambiguous, are erroneous.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

It is deemed unnecessary to set forth the facts in evidence more fully than they appear in the opinion of the court. The court, of its own motion, gave the following instruction: “If the jury find that the defendant employed plaintiffs in the capacity of real estate agents to sell land for him, and that they effected a sale thereof agreeably to such employment, and that there was no special agreement as to the compensation they in that behalf rendered, then the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a reasonable compensation for such services. But if the jury find that there was a special continuous contract made between plaintiffs and defendant concerning such sale, and that one of the conditions of such contract was that plaintiffs should sell the land for a sufficient price to reimburse the defendant for the costs and expenses he had incurred concerning the land and to pay them for their services, then, in order for the plaintiffs to recover in this suit, the jury should believe from the evidence that the land sold for a sufficient sum to reimburse defendant for his said costs and expenses and to compensate plaintiffs; and if the sale was made under a contract with such a condition, the jury should find for the defendant, unless they believe that the land sold for a sufficient sum to reimburse defendants and to plaintiffs their compensation; and the burden of proving that plaintiffs had performed the conditions of such a special contract devolves upon the plaintiffs to entitle them to recover.”

H. N. Hart, for appellants.

I. The court erred in giving the instruction given on its own motion. Neither the contract set up nor the evidence authorized the instruction. The contract set up as well as that proved was evidently for the costs and expenses of the sale. That propounded by the court was one for indemnity for the costs and expenses incurred concerning the property, without regard to time or ownership. (Harrison v. Cachelin, 27 Mo. 26.) The court had no right to comment upon a supposititious contract not in evidence. The legal import of the words used was for the court to expound. (26 Mo. 393, 394; 4 Mo. 106; 8 Mo. 224; 21 Mo. 405; 25 Mo. 335.)

Cates, for respondent.

I. The evidence sustained the verdict. The court properly instructed the jury.

NAPT...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Kyle v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1947
    ...notice. Corder v. O'Neill, 176 Mo. 401, 75 S.W. 764. (6) "Produce" has several meanings. Jury's verdict settled its meaning here. Belt v. Good, 31 Mo. 128; Edwards v. Smith, 63 Mo. 119; Deutmann Kilpatrick, 46 Mo.App. 24. (7) Courts hold "produce" and similar words all have same meaning. 8 ......
  • Lewis v. Zagata
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 1, 1942
    ...in the instruction, appellant cites the following cases: Gardner v. Metropolitan Street Railway, 223 Mo. 389, 417, 122 S.W. 1068; Belt v. Goode, 31 Mo. 128; Hengelsberg Cushing (Mo. App.), 51 S.W.2d 187, 189; and Williams v. Excavating & Foundation Co., 230 Mo.App. 973, 93 S.W.2d 123, 126. ......
  • Kvasnicka v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1942
    ... ... Thomas, 17 Mo. 329; Clamp ... v. Rodewall, 19 Mo. 449; Clarke v. Kitchen, 52 ... Mo. 316; Price v. Breckinridge, 5 S.W. 20; Belt ... v. Goode, 31 Mo. 128; Greer v. Ry., 80 Mo. 555; ... Luft v. Strobel, 19 S.W.2d 721; Freeman v ... Berberich, 60 S.W.2d 393; Lee v ... ...
  • Whitmore v. Supreme Lodge Knights & Ladies of Honor
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1890
    ...such as are calculated to confuse and mislead the jury, should not be given. Otto v. Bent, 48 Mo. 23; Greer v. Parker, 85 Mo. 107; Belt v. Good, 31 Mo. 128. (7) Misstatement of a will not avoid the policy, unless the fact, if correctly stated, would have increased the risk, induced the insu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT