Burgess v. Garvin
Decision Date | 09 February 1925 |
Citation | 272 S.W. 108,219 Mo.App. 162 |
Parties | PRESTON BURGESS, by His Next Friend, H. S. BURGESS, Respondent, v. B. W. GARVIN and L. B. PRICE MERCANTILE COMPANY, Appellant. * |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Charles R Pence, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Swearingen & Finnell for respondent.
Ryland Boys, Stinson & May and R. E. Ball for appellant Price Mercantile Company.
Clarence L. Hogin for defendant Garvin.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment in the sum of $ 5,000 and defendant has appealed.
The facts show that plaintiff was injured between 2:00 and 3:00 P. M. on the 18th day of May, 1920, by being struck by an automobile being driven by the defendant, Garvin, at 5th and Troup streets in Kansas City, Kansas. Defendant, L. B. Price Mercantile Company, insists that its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should have been given because, first, there was no evidence tending to show that any relation of respondeat superior existed between it and its co-defendant; second, if such a relation was shown, its co-defendant was acting without the scope of his authority at the time of the collision, and, third, there was no evidence upon which to submit the case to the jury on the humanitarian doctrine, or upon any other theory. Defendant, Garvin, adopts all the points made by his co-defendant except those inapplicable to him.
We shall first state the evidence on the question as to whether the relation of respondeat superior existed between the defendants. The evidence shows that Garvin was employed by his co-defendant to sell on commission certain goods handled by defendant mercantile company, which consisted of small rugs, curtains, silverware and household specialties, and in carrying out this work Garvin used an automobile owned, controlled and operated by him at his own expense. It was while operating this automobile that he struck plaintiff, as aforesaid. One Farr was riding with Garvin at the time of the collision and had been with him all of that day transacting the business in which Garvin was engaged in Kansas City, Kansas. There was testimony that Farr was being "broken in" by Garvin, that the former was in the mercantile company's "organization" and that Garvin paid Farr a part of the commission on sales made by Farr. On the morning of May 18, 1920, Garvin and Farr went to the place of business of the mercantile company in Kansas City, Missouri, about eight or eight-thirty, where they procured a load of merchandise consisting of miscellaneous merchandise such as small rugs, curtains, silverware, etc. At the time of the collision Garvin had 250 pounds of these goods in the back end of his car, which was a five-passenger Ford automobile.
The canvassers of the mercantile company were required to take contracts in making sales, variously called, "leases," "mortgages" and "contracts." One of the contracts that was furnished Garvin and the other canvassers is a form of a chattel mortgage. The canvassers would sell goods on payments and take back from the buyer a mortgage for the part of the purchase price unpaid. These mortgages would be made in favor of the L. B. Price Mercantile Company. The one introduced in evidence (Exhibit 7) recited that it was taken for the balance of the purchase price of the property therein described and that the payments should be made to the Price Company; it provides against selling or removing the property and if default should be made in payment of any indebtedness of the mortgagor or any attempt to sell or attempt to remove the property, that it should be lawful for the mercantile company to take possession of the property and sell the same. It also recites "as further security, the undersigned also sells, assigns and transfers to said Company, all the salary, wages, commission, and demands due and to become due to me" as security for the payment of the indebtedness. At the bottom appears the following under the head of "NOTICE."
(Italics ours.)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Borgstede v. Waldbauer
... ... (4) The ... demurrer of the defendant G. H. Wetterau & Sons Grocery ... Company to the evidence was properly overruled. Burgess ... v. Garvin & Price Merc. Co., 219 Mo.App. 162; ... Gordner v. St. Louis Screw Co., 201 Mo.App. 349; ... Margulis v. Natl. Enameling & Stamp ... ...
-
Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co.
... ... in the course of deceased's employment. Jackson v ... Investment Co., 22 S.W.2d 849; Smith v ... Levis-Zukoski, 14 S.W.2d 470; Burgess v ... Garvin, 219 Mo.App. 162, 272 S.W. 114; Manley v ... Lumber Co., 221 N.W. 913; Kingsley v. Donovan, ... 155 N.Y.S. 801; Sexton v ... ...
-
Berry v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Co.
... ... S.W.2d 829; Fuqua v. Lumbermen's Supply Co., 229 ... Mo.App. 210, 76 S.W.2d 715; Tutie v. Kennedy, 272 ... S.W. 117; Burgess v. Garvin, 219 Mo.App. 162, 272 ... S.W. 108; State ex rel. Waters v. Hostetter, 344 Mo ... 443, 126 S.W.2d 1164. (10) Instruction 3 is proper ... ...
-
Maher v. Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co.
... ... right to find and hold that the truck driver was the servant ... of defendant. Karguth v. Coal & Coke Co., 299 Mo ... 580; Burgess v. Garvin, 219 Mo.App. 162. (4) Since ... appellant had not fully performed its contract for the ... purchase and sale of the coal until the coal ... ...