Brunner v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Co.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1944
• Docket Number: 37382
• Citation: 181 S.W.2d 643,352 Mo. 1225
• Parties: Edwin J. Brunner v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Company, a Corporation
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

181 S.W.2d 643

352 Mo. 1225

Edwin J. Brunner v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Company, a Corporation

No. 37382

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 5, 1944

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1944.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Joseph J Ward, Judge.

Affirmed (subject to remittitur).

Ben L Shifrin, Herman Willer, James E. Garstang and Harold R. Small for appellant; Carter & Small and Taylor, Mayer, Shifrin & Willer of counsel.

(1) No cause of action was pleaded or proved. Plaintiff merely alleged and testified he negotiated for a test in order thereafter to agree on terms of sale. Plaintiff testified he was urging the use of his plan after May 13, 1930, evidence of plaintiff that defendant had not theretofore, or in March 1930, agreed, as claimed, to a test to buy or use plaintiff's plan. There was no agreement to buy plaintiff's plan, nor was there a use by defendant of plaintiff's plan in March, 1930, or at any other time. The plan defendant used from July 15, 1930, into September, 1930, was defendant's plan, was exclusively executed by it and was essentially different from plaintiff's plan. Reifschneider v. Beck, 129 S.W. 232, 148 Mo.App. 725; Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 70 F.2d 345; Earle v. Coburn, 130 Mass. 596; Lamson Con. Store Service Co. v. Weil, 8 N.Y.S. 336; Municipal Water Works Co. v. City of Fort Smith, 216 F. 431; Haskins v. Ryan, 64 A. 436, 71 N.J.Eq. 575, 73 A. 1118, 75 N.J.Eq. 623, 78 A. 566, 75 N.J.Eq. 330; United States v. Societe Anonyme des Anciens Etablissements Cail, 224 U.S. 309, 56 L.Ed. 778; United States v. The Berdan Firearms Mfg. Co., 156 U.S. 552, 39 L.Ed. 530; Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Tubbs Mfg. Co., 216 F. 401; Soule v. Bon Ami Co., 195 N.Y.S. 574, affirmed 235 N.Y. 609, 139 N.E. 754; Larkin v. Penn. R., 210 N.Y.S. 374, affirmed 245 N.Y. 578, 157 N.E. 864; Masline v. N.Y.N.H. & H.R. Co., 95 Conn. 702, 112 A. 639; Burwell v. B. & O.R., 164 N.E. 434, 310 A. 22; Dobbins v. City Bond & Mtg. Co., 124 S.W.2d 1111, 343 Mo. 1001; 29 Stat. 692 (1897), 35 U.S.C., Sec. 31 (1929); 35 Stat. 1075, 1088 (1909), 17 U.S.C., Sec. 1 (1927); 17 U.S.C.A., Sec. 5; Universal Savings Corp. v. Morris Plan Co., 234 F. 382; Bristol v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 132 N.Y. 264, 30 N.E. 506; Young v. Ralston-Purina Co., 88 F.2d 97; State ex rel. Massman Const. Co. v. Shain, 344 Mo. 1003; Usona Mfg. Co. v. Shubert-Christy Corp., 132 S.W.2d 1101; Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 28 F.2d 529, affirmed 43 F.2d 685; Stein v. Morris, 120 Va. 390, 91 S.E. 177. (2) Plaintiff had nothing to sell. His plan was not patented or copyrighted. His plan was not new or original with him. Employee team solicitation for charge accounts, which plaintiff testified was 90 per cent of his plan, had been for many years before 1930 common store practice, and had been by defendant employed as far back as 1916, fourteen years before 1930. Westminster Laundry Co. v. Hesse Envelope Co., 174 Mo.App. 238, 156 S.W. 767; Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp., 35 F.2d 279, certiorari denied 281 U.S. 728; Lynch v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 32 F.Supp. 575; Sherwood v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 18 N.Y.S. (2d) 388, 173 Misc. 871; Rapp v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 33 F.Supp. 47; Millinery Creators Guild v. Federal Trade Comm., 109 F.2d 175; Electric Auto-Lite Co. v. P. & D. Mfg. Co., 109 F.2d 566; Kellogg Co. v. Natl. Biscuit Co., 91 F.2d 150, 96 F.2d 873, 305 U.S. 111; International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 39 S.Ct. 68, 63 L.Ed. 211; Weil on Copyright, sec. 998; Penn Sportservice Inc. v. Goldstein, 33 F.Supp. 944; Darrell v. Joe Morris Music Co., 113 F.2d 80; Larkin v. Penn. R. Co., 125 Misc. 238, 210 N.Y.S. 374, affirmed 245 N.Y. 578, 157 N.E. 864; Fendler v. Morosco, 171 N.E. 56, 253 N.Y. 281 reversing 216 N.Y.S. 829, 217 A.D. 791, reargument denied 173 N.E. 867, 254 N.Y. 563. (3) Plaintiff's plan was public property by the prior publication and use plaintiff testified he permitted use of it by Scruggs-Vandervoort & Barney and others before July 15, 1930. Such publication made it usable by anyone, and ended any property rights plaintiff theretofore may have had to it. Vol. XIX, No. 4, June, 1934, St. Louis Law Review 323 to 340; 27 Mich. L. Rev. 708; 25 Mich. L. Rev. 886, 887; 4 Mo. Law Review 239 to 268; Fashion Originators Guild of America, Inc., v. Federal Trade Comm., 114 F.2d 80, affirmed on certiorari, 85 L.Ed. 123; R.C.A. Mfg. Co., Inc., v. Whiteman, 114 F.2d 86, certiorari denied, 61 S.Ct. 393; 13 C.J. 996, Note 33; Kurfiss v. Cowherd, 121 S.W.2d 282, 233 Mo.App. 397; Kraft v. Cohen, 32 F.Supp. 821; Miller v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303. (4) No damages were proved. Haskins v. Ryan, 64 A. 436, 71 N.J.Eq. 575, 73 A. 118, 75 N.J.Eq. 623, 78 A. 566, 75 N.J.Eq. 332; Telephone Co. v. Donnelly, 35 F.Supp. 425; Penn Sportservice v. Goldstein, 35 F.Supp. 706; Zuckerman v. Dixon, 35 F.Supp. 903; Burndy Engineering Co. v. Penn. Union Elec. Corp., 36 F.Supp. 35; Kraft v. Cohen, 32 F.Supp. 821; 14 Minn. Law Review 538; Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U.S. 390. (5) The testimony of witness Frank E. Dolson, having to do with the total charge account sales and total number of charge accounts, was inadmissible, as it has no logical relevancy or tendency to prove any of the facts in issue and was confusing and misleading to the jury. 20 Amer. Jurisprudence, sec. 246, p. 239; 2 Jones Commentaries on Evidence (2d Ed.), sec. 593, p. 1097; McDonald v. Kansas City Gas Co., 332 Mo. 356, 59 S.W.2d 37. (6) The evidence of witness Leo C. Fuller, contained in defendant's offer of proof as to the rule having to do with contracts made by the company, was admissible, as it was logically relevant and tended to prove the improbability of a contract such as alleged by plaintiff as having been entered into. 2 Jones on Evidence (2d Ed.), sec. 103, p. 1115; 1 Wigmore on Evidence (3d Ed.), sec. 93; Daly v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 128 A. 531. (7) Testimony of witness Chester Feitel where he gave an approximation, over and above the exception of defendant, that the percentage of gross sales allowable for obtaining new business was somewhere between 3 1/2 per cent to 4 per cent, was irrelevant and had no logical tendency to prove any of the issuable facts in the case and was misleading and confusing to the jury. 20 Amer. Jurisprudence, p. 239, sec. 246; 2 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence (2d Ed.), p. 1097, sec. 593; McDonald v. Kansas City Gas Co., 332 Mo. 356, 59 S.W.2d 37. (8) The testimony of expert witness Klaman, having to do with the value of architect's services in drawing plans and the value of attorneys' fees in preparing briefs, which was admitted over and above the exception of the defendant, was absolutely irrelevant to any of the issues in the case and was very misleading and confusing to the jury. 20 Amer. Jurisprudence, p. 239, sec. 246; 2 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence (2d Ed.), p. 1097, sec. 593; McDonald v. Kansas City Gas Co., 332 Mo. 356, 59 S.W.2d 37. (9) There was error in giving plaintiffs' instructions 1, 2 and 4, said instructions, and each of them, being inapplicable to the pleadings and the evidence, and were not within the pleadings and the evidence, and were broader than the issues and were misleading in that they did not state the issues. State ex rel. Grisham v. Allen, 344 Mo. 66; Diesel-Wemmer-Gilbert Corp. v. Chalmers Tobacco Co., 231 Mo.App. 631. (10) The verdict and judgment was excessive, and the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial on that ground. Vinick v. Charm Publications, Inc., 35 F.Supp. 275; Telephone Co. v. Donnelly, 35 F.Supp. 425; Penn Sportservice, Inc., v. Goldstein, 35 F.Supp. 706; Zuckerman v. Dixon, 35 F.Supp. 903; Burndy Engineering Co., Inc., v. Penn. Union Electric Corp., 36 F.Supp. 35; Kraft v. Cohen, 32 F.Supp. 821; 18 Minn. Law Review 538; Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U.S. 390.

Jesse W. Barrett and Joseph J. Howard for respondent.

(1) The trial court properly refused defendant's demurrers offered at the close of plaintiff's case and at the close of all the evidence. A cause of action had been pleaded and proved. 2 Bl. Comm. 405; 13 C.J. 947; Aronson v Baker, 43 N.J.Eq. 365, 12 A. 177; Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. Myer, 101 Ind.App. 420, 194 N.E. 206; Ryan v. Century Brewing Assn., 104 A.L.R. 1353, 55 P.2d 1053, 185 Wash. 600; Aronson v. Fleckenstein, 28 F. 75; Maxwell v. Goodwin, 93 F. 665; Uproar Co. v. Natl. Broadcasting Co., 81 F.2d 373; Shook v. Rankin, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,804; Palmer v. Dewitt, 47 N.Y. 532; Fleron v. Lackaye, 14 N.Y.S. 292; Toole v. Young, L.R. 9 Q.B. 523; Thomas v. Lennon, 14 F. 849; Corte v. Ford, 15 F. 439; Mikado Case, 25 F. 183; Wilkie v. Santly Bros., Inc., 91 F.2d 978; Stern v. Carl Laemmle Music Co., 74 Misc. 262, 133 N.Y.S. 1082; Casino Productions, Inc., v. Vitaphone Corp., 163 Misc. 403, 295 N.Y.S. 501; American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284; Werckmeister v. Springer Lith. Co., 63 F. 808; Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co., 157 F. 186, affirmed 215 U.S. 182; Parton v. Prang, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,784; Oertel v. Wood, 40 How. Pr. 10; Mansell v. Valley Printing Co., 2 Ch. 441; Turner v. Robinson, 10 Ir. Ch. R. 121; Prince Albert v. Strange, 2 DeG. & S. 652; Bowden Bros. v. Amalgamated Pictorials, 1 Ch. 386; Grigsby v. Breckenridge, 1 Bush 480; Denis v. Leclerc, 1 Mart. 159; Baker v. Libbie, 210 Mass. 599, 97 N.E. 109; Woolsey v. Judd, 11 N.Y. Super. 379, 11 How. Pr. 49; Barrett v. Fish, 72 Vt. 18, 47 A. 174; Wright v. Eisle, 86 A.D. 356, 83 N.Y.S. 887; Kurfiss v. Cowherd, 121 S.W.2d 282, 233 Mo.App. 397; McDearmott Comm. Co. v. Chicago Board of Trade, 146 F. 961; Keene v. Kimball, 16 Gray 545; N.J. State Dental Soc. v. Dentacura Co., 57 N.J.Eq. 593, 41 A. 672; Abernathy v. Hutchinson, 1 Hall & T. 28; Dart v. Woodhouse, 40 Mich. 399; Banker v....