Collins v. John Pfingsten Leather Co.
| Decision Date | 30 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 14508.,14508. |
| Citation | 196 Mo. App. 611,190 S.W. 990 |
| Parties | COLLINS et al. v. JOHN PFINGSTEN LEATHER CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Eugene McQuillin, Judge.
Action by W. D. Collins and another against John Pfingsten Leather Company. From judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Charles E. Morrow, of St. Louis, for appellants. Arthur N. Sager, of New York City, for respondent.
This is a suit in replevin for 142 bales of leather. The petition was filed in the circuit court, city of St. Louis, on the 7th day of February, 1913, and is in the usual form, accompanied by an affidavit that the property was wrongfully detained, and that its actual value was $4,000, and that the plaintiffs would be in danger of losing said property unless it be taken from the possession of the defendant or otherwise secured. The order of delivery was duly made by the court, and thereafter the plaintiffs gave the sheriff a bond in the sum of $8,000, and the sheriff thereupon took the property and delivered it to plaintiffs.
The suit was originally against John Pfingsten Leather Company, Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, and Columbia Transfer Company, but the railroad company and the transfer company simply had the leather in question as carriers, and by stipulation of all of the parties the cause was dismissed as to those two defendants. The real issues were raised by the answer of the defendant, John Pfingsten Leather Company and the reply of the plaintiffs thereto.
The answer of the defendant, John Pfingsten Leather Company, alleged that it was a corporation, and that the plaintiffs were copartners, and alleged that on or about the 15th day of August, 1912, it entered into a verbal contract with the plaintiffs to treat and tan at its tannery in Milwaukee, Wis., certain hides to be furnished by plaintiffs at a price of 4 cents per square foot, and that pursuant to that contract plaintiffs furnished and delivered to the defendant certain hides which were treated and tanned by it and converted into leather, and that after this was done and they were finished and ready for shipment, the leather was bundled into convenient form for shipment, and aggregated 142 bundles and contained about 24,981½ square feet of leather; that on or about the 29th day of January, 1913, these bundles of leather were delivered to the Goodrich Transit Company, a common carrier, consigned and billed to the order of itself at St. Louis, Mo., notify the plaintiffs, and that when the said leather so billed arrived in St. Louis and was in possession of the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, it was seized by the sheriff under writ of replevin and given into the possession of the plaintiffs. Defendant further alleged in its answer that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the possession of the leather, for the reason that it had a lien on the leather, under the law, for work and labor which it had done in converting said hides into leather, which lien, at the agreed price of 4 cents per square foot, amounted to the sum of $999.26, and that the defendant had the right of possession of said leather to satisfy its claim for that amount; therefore defendant prayed judgment against the plaintiffs for the possession of the 142 bundles of leather and for damages in the sum of $500, or in the event the plaintiffs were unable to restore the leather, judgment was asked against the plaintiffs and each of them in the sum of $999.26, with interest, and $500 for damages.
To this answer the plaintiffs filed a reply, in which they admitted that the defendant was a corporation doing business in Milwaukee, Wis., and that they had furnished the hides from which the 142 bundles of leather were made, involved in this case, and admitted that on or about the 29th day of January, 1913, the defendant had shipped the 142 bundles of leather from Milwaukee to St. Louis, consigned to the order of itself, notify plaintiffs, and admitted that they had taken possession of the leather under a writ of replevin. Plaintiffs, further replying, stated that on or about the 22d day of August, plaintiffs and defendant had entered into an oral contract whereby the defendant agreed to treat and tan hides which were to be bought and furnished by the plaintiffs, at a price of 4 cents per square foot for grain leather and 1½ cents per square foot for split leather, and that by the terms of said oral agreement the defendant was to pay interest to the plaintiffs at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum on the money invested by the plaintiffs in the hides purchased and shipped to defendant for tanning under said contract, and also interest at 6 per cent. per annum upon any sums of money advanced to defendant by plaintiffs for any reason whatsoever in connection with said contract, and that defendant agreed to tan all hides in a good and workmanlike manner. For further reply the plaintiffs stated that after the making of said oral contract and pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs delivered to the defendant at Milwaukee, Wis., certain hides, and also purchased and held certain hides under the contract, for defendant, to be treated by it under said contract, among which were the leather and hides in question in this suit, being 142 bundles. The plaintiffs denied that the said hides were duly and properly tanned and converted into leather, and denied that the reasonable value for so treating and tanning these 142 bundles was 4 cents per square foot, or any other sum, and alleged that in the tanning of these 142 bundles of hides in question, the defendant so treated them that they became damaged and depreciated in value to the extent of $1,998.48, and that therefore the plaintiffs were not indebted to the defendant in the sum claimed in the answer, or any other amount, and that therefore defendant had no lien upon the 142 bundles of leather involved in this controversy. Plaintiffs, replying, further stated that at the agreed price of 4 cents per square foot the defendant would only have a claim for services rendered in tanning said hides, amounting to $999.26, and that at the time the said hides in suit were shipped bill of lading was attached to secure $1,666.68, and this was an exorbitant and unreasonable amount, and included an unjust and nonlien demand which was grossly excessive, and because of this fact defendant had no lien upon the 142 bundles of leather involved in this case. Further replying, the plaintiffs stated that, after entering into this oral contract, they from time to time advanced money to the defendant on said contract, which was unpaid at the time this suit was instituted, and which amounted to $752.54, and further alleged that plaintiffs had invested in hides to be furnished under said contract the interest on which at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, in accordance with the terms of the contract, amounted to $2,126.86, and this, together with the amount advanced, aggregated $2,879.40, which was due and owing under said contract from the defendant to the plaintiffs at the time of the institution of the suit, and that therefore, even if the defendant had a claim for services rendered in tanning the hides amounting to $999.26, it should be deducted from the amount due from defendant to plaintiffs under the contract, and that defendant, therefore, could not have a lien upon the 142 bundles of leather. Further replying, plaintiffs alleged that it had delivered to defendant under said contract certain half hides to the number of 1,015, and of the value of $279.12, which defendant received, but neglected to tan, and converted the same to its own use, thereby rendering defendant further indebted to plaintiffs. Further replying, the plaintiffs alleged that it delivered to defendant certain hides to be treated under said contract to the value of $2,618.78, and that defendant failed to treat said hides in a workmanlike manner, but, on the contrary, in the process of tanning, they entirely ruined them and rendered them worthless, and that because of that fact the defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $2,618.78 for said hides so ruined, and that because of that fact defendant had no lien or charge against the hides involved in this case.
The evidence tended to show that the defendant was operating a tannery in Milwaukee, Wis., and that in August, 1912, Mr. Collins, one of the plaintiffs, made an arrangement with the defendant to tan hides for the plaintiffs. The contract was oral. By the terms of this contract it was orally agreed between the plaintiffs and defendant that the plaintiffs should furnish certain hides to the defendant to be tanned, and the plaintiffs were to pay the defendant 4 cents per square foot for tanning the grain leather and 1½ cents per square foot for tanning split leather. The president of the defendant company indicated that from time to time he would have to have money advanced to him by the plaintiffs to carry on the work of tanning the hides under the contract. Plaintiffs agreed to advance said moneys from time to time, and the evidence shows that some advances were in fact made. Under the terms of the agreement the defendant was to pay the plaintiffs 6 per cent. interest on said sums so advanced, and also was to pay the plaintiffs 6 per cent. interest on the moneys invested by the plaintiffs in said hides which were to be tanned by defendant under said contract, and it was further agreed that after the tanning had been done and the leather was sold, the defendant was to allow plaintiffs 5 per cent. for selling the leather, and then the profits which accrued upon the selling of the leather, if any, were to be divided equally between plaintiffs and defendant. It was further understood that the leather was to be tanned by defendant in a workmanlike manner. There was no substantial dispute between the parties on the terms of the above...
To continue reading
Request your trial