C. D. Johnson Farming Co. v. Goodwyn

• Decision Date: 18 January 1919
• Docket Number: No. 2267.,2267.
• Parties: C. D. JOHNSON FARMING CO. v. GOOWYN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

208 S.W. 110

C. D. JOHNSON FARMING CO. v. GOOWYN.

No. 2267.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 18, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.

Replevin by the C. D. Johnson Farming Company against L. C. Goodwyn. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

B. L. Guffy, of Hayti, for appellant. Von Mayes, of Hayti, for respondent.

BRADLEY, J.

Plaintiff, a mortgagee, on October 13, 1917, sued in replevin to recover possession of three mules and other personal property under a chattel mortgage. Upon trial below before the court and a jury, a verdict was returned for the defendant, assessing the value of the property taken by the writ at $425, and from the judgment entered on said verdict plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal.

The petition and affidavit are in the usual form. The answer denies that plaintiff at the time of instituting this cam e, or at any other time, was entitled to possession of the property mentioned; denies that defendant wrongfully detained the property from plaintiff; and alleges that defendant was entitled to the possession of the property, and that the value thereof was 870C; and asked damages in the sum of $200 for the alleged wrongful taking and detention by plaintiff.

Plaintiff has extensive farm lands and many tenants at and near Netherlands in Pemiscot county. Defendant's version of the transaction resulting in this suit is that in December, 1916, he then lived in the state of Mississippi, where he came in contact with plaintiff's representative, which representative told defendant that plaintiff was renting its lands at $8 per acre, and that the representative advised defendant to go up and see plaintiff; that he went up to see plaintiff, and made a deal for some farm land to cultivate for the crop season of 1917; and also made arrangements with plaintiff whereby defendant was to get other families from Mississippi to come to plaintiff's plantation; and that plaintiff was to pay him (defendant) for his time and expenses in getting these other families. Defendant, including his own family, got six families to move to plaintiff's plantation, among which families were those of defendant's son and son-in-law. On January 15, 1917, defendant's son went to plaintiff's agent to get $20 which had been previously promised, and Mr. Gause, the agent, said to the son: "Where is the old man? Go and get him to come up here." Then defendant gives his version of the note and mortgage in controversy here, thus:

"So I went up, and Mr. Gause was in the office. He says, `Goodwyn, what we want you here for, you brought back a lot of hands here, and we don't know them, and we want you to give your security for all they want up to the 1st of March' Isays: `That don't look reasonable. I got the hands for you; you didn't know them, and you don't know me.' He says, `You give us a mortgage on your mules and wagon and farming implements to secure that, and on the 1st of March when these hands go to work for us, we will credit you with your part of the expenses, and the work you have done, and if there is anything coming to you we will pay you.' I says, `I don't want to mortgage my mules.' He says: `Now want you to understand you have a contract with us and you are getting supplies. We are not selling anything on a credit; we are selling for cash; and we will not credit any until the 1st of March, and, when they go to work for us, we will credit you with all the account, and with the amount of work you have done and balance the account. We will pay you anything if we owe you, and if there is anything due us we will carry it over on the crop at 8 per cent'"

On the date mentioned, January 15, 1917, defendant executed his note for $300 showing on the face thereof to be due November 1, 1917, and executed the mortgage under which plaintiff claims possession of the property repleVined to secure said note. [Defendant says that he cannot read, and that plaintiff's agent read the note to him as though it was due March 1, 1917. Plaintiff's version is that the note and mortgage were given to secure money and supplies furnished defendant on a running account extending through the crop season of 1917, and denies that the note was to be due March 1st. Plaintiff originally charged money and supplies furnished the other families who. came from Mississippi with defendant to defendant's account; but, when these families got located under arrangements with plaintiff, then each individual's account was charged with the amount advanced to that individual, and defendant's account credited accordingly.

It is admitted that after giving defendant credit for items later charged to others, and also giving him credit for what clearing and ditching he had done that had been taken up prior to March 1st, he would not owe plaintiff anything on March 1st. Also, it is admitted that the defendant at the time this suit was instituted owed plaintiff a sum equal to the face of the note. Defendant's position is that he gave the note for $300 on January 15, 1917, thinking that it was due March 1st thereafter to secure his own account as well as the accounts of others up to March 1st, and that that was the only consideration for the note and mortgage; while, on the other hand, plaintiff contends that not only was the consideration for the note...