Buelterman v. Meyer
| Decision Date | 18 February 1896 |
| Parties | BUELTERMAN v. MEYER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Action by Louis Buelterman against Conrad H. Meyer. From judgment on the report of a referee, the plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Lubke & Muench and L. E. Walther, for plaintiff in error. Leonard Wilcox, for defendant in error.
The petition in this action contains two counts. The first alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to buy and sell feed, hay, grain, etc., for the defendant, for which plaintiff was to receive one-half of the profits on sales made by him, after deducting certain charges for hauling, and that there is a balance due plaintiff, amounting to the sum of $1,817.37, on account of the profits on such sales made by him, for which he asks judgment. The second count alleges that, at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff rendered services in assisting defendant's bookkeeper in keeping defendant's books, which were of the reasonable value of $1,160, for which he asks judgment. The answer to the second count was a general denial, and to the first count that the defendant agreed to collect all bills, and be accountable to the defendant for the full price of all goods sold by him; that during his said employment plaintiff sold goods of the defendant to divers persons who have not paid therefor, and who are insolvent, and to divers other persons from whom he collected the proceeds of such sales without accounting therefor, and sets up, by way of counterclaim, an itemized statement of the bills thus sold and not paid or accounted for by him, amounting, in the aggregate, to the sum of $3,210.30. A further counterclaim is set up in the answer for the sum of $580, for the reasonable value of the use of a horse and buggy furnished by defendant at plaintiff's request; and defendant prays that an account be taken of the transactions between the plaintiff and defendant, and for judgment for such balance as may be found due defendant on such accounting. The reply was a general denial. By consent, the cause was referred to Frank Hicks, Esq., to try all the issues and report his finding thereon. On the 18th of June, 1890, the referee filed his report, containing a clear and concise analysis of the voluminous evidence taken before him, and, in substance, finding that the plaintiff, under the contract between the parties, is entitled, on account of his share of the profits on sales made by him, to the sum of $1,802.84, and that he should be held responsible for all sales made by him; that, upon an accounting between plaintiff and defendant, all sums due for merchandise sold by plaintiff during his employment should be charged to him; and that there is due and unpaid to the defendant, for merchandise sold by plaintiff, from the following named persons, the following amounts, which should be charged to plaintiff:
Account of F. Kuhlman .................. $ 188 99
" Sauer & Fagley .......... 229 07
" Henry Dedert ................ 530 68
" Henry E. Rodeman ............ 217 09
" Edward Henry ................ 358 87
Notes of Edward Henry .................. 877 46
Account of T. P. Rusell ................ 22 60
" J P Waldon .................. 41 27
" H. Lewitz ................... 72 47
Notes of E. Beyer ...................... 150 00
Account of C. P. Mason ................. 93 56
" Betz Bros. .................. 60 22
" Kavanaugh & Raynor ...... 338 97
Notes of B. Murnaghen .................. 208 35
_________
Making the aggregate so charged ........ $3,389 60
— From which the aforesaid balance due plaintiff on account of profits, being deducted, would leave due defendant the sum of $1,586.76, upon payment of which balance by plaintiff he will be entitled to an assignment of said notes and accounts. The referee further found, as to the second count in the petition, that the plaintiff rendered assistance to the defendant's bookkeeper, in keeping defendant's books, for 29 months, and that the reasonable value of such services was $20 per month, and that such services were rendered with the knowledge of the defendant, but without any express request or any...
To continue reading
Request your trial