Columbia Building & Loan Ass'n v. Gill
| Decision Date | 29 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 19262.,19262. |
| Citation | 285 S.W. 181 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | COLUMBIA BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. GILL et al. |
Action by the Columbia Building & Loan Association against Guy V. Gill and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Willis H. Clark, of St. Louis, for plaintiffs in error.
Walter L. Roos, of St. Louis, for defendant in error.
This action was instituted by defendant in error (hereinafter called the plaintiff) in a justice's court by the filing of a statement in which it was alleged that plaintiff owned a deed of trust on property formerly belonging to plaintiffs in error (hereinafter called the defendants), which said deed of trust secured a loan of $3,700 made by plaintiff to defendants; that, when said loan was paid by defendants, a mistake was made by plaintiff in calculating the amount due thereon in the sum of $298.59; that, as soon as plaintiff discovered said mistake, it immediately notified defendants thereof, and demanded that they pay said amount, but that the defendants failed and refused so to do. An appeal was taken to the circuit court, where, in a trial de novo, under the direction of the court, a verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $298.59, with interest amounting to $26.87, or for the total sum of $327.46. Judgment was duly rendered on the verdict, and the case is here on writ of error sued out by defendants.
The loan of $3,700 was made by plaintiff to defendants in May, 1920. Under the by-laws of the association defendants had the right to repay the loan by turning over their stock to plaintiff upon proper notice and application, and in the ensuing settlement it was provided that they should be charged for the face of the loan and for any dues, interest, fines, etc., that they might owe plaintiff, and should be credited with one-half of the premiums actually paid by them to plaintiff and for the value of the stock as fixed by the bylaws.
The loan was carried by defendants until December, 1922, or for a period of 32 months. In the latter part of 1922 Mrs. Gill, one of the defendants, called at plaintiff's office, and interviewed Mr. Wenzlick, plaintiff's secretary and treasurer, relative to repayment of the loan and withdrawal of the shares. Mr. Wenzlick explained to her the plan of withdrawal, but did not calculate the exact amount which defendants would be required to pay. Such calculation was made by, a clerk in the office, and a statement was rendered defendants showing that, in accordance with the by-laws of the association, the sum of 82,637.73 was due, which amount was paid on December 22, 1922. Subsequently it was determined that an error had been made in the calculation, due to the fact that the clerk had figured the loan as having been carried for a period of 44 months instead of 32, leaving a balance due plaintiff from defendants of $298.59. Demand was made upon defendants by plaintiff for the payment of this sum, and, upon defendants' neglect or refusal to pay, the present action was instituted.
Defendants first assign as error the action of the court in overruling their objection to the introduction of any evidence on the part of plaintiff, for the reason that the statement filed in the justice's court did not state a cause of action, and for the further reason that the court had no jurisdiction over the cause under such statement.
As to the contention that the statement failed to state a cause of action, we are mindful that formal pleadings are not required in a justice's court, and that any statement is sufficient if it serves reasonably to apprise the opposite party of the nature of the claim asserted against him, and is sufficiently definite to bar another action on the same demand. Furthermore, where an action originates before a justice of the peace, and is appealed to the circuit court, the sufficiency of the statement in the circuit court is to be determined by the requirements of the law applicable to statemenes filed in the justice's court. Walton v. Carlisle (Mo. Sup.) 281 S. W. 402; Steinbruegge v. Prudential Insurance Co., 196 Mo. App. 194, 190 S. W. 1018; American Packing Co. v. Neece (Mo. App.) 277 S. W. 605. Measured by the above rules, we think that the statement in the case at bar is not subject to the criticism lodged against it.
With respect to the contention that the court had no jurisdiction, the argument is advanced that the mistake which gave rise to the present action was not mutual, but was unilateral; that it was not induced by the fraud or culpability of defendants; and that, therefore, plaintiff's only recourse was to a court of equity in a suit to rescind after having placed, or offered to place, defendants in statu quo. Learned counsel, however, misconceives the rule of law applicable to the facts of the case at bar. The authorities which he cites, and upon which he relies, correctly declare the rule that a voluntary payment made under a unilateral mistake or in ignorance of the law, but with full knowledge of all the facts, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co.
... ... 16); ... South Carolina Asparagus Assn. v. So. Ry., 64 F.2d ... 419; Mitchell Coal & Coke Co ... v. Butler County, 297 Mo. 20, 247 S.W. 795; Columbia ... B. & L. Assn. v. Gill, 285 S.W. 181; Wilkins v ... defendant to retain the money. Pipkin v. Natl. Loan & Inv. Co., 80 Mo.App. 1; Stout v. Caruthersville ... ...
-
Staples v. O'Reilly, 7395
...McDonough, 33 Mo. 412, 415; R. S. Jacobs Banking Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank, Mo.App., 34 S.W.2d 173, 183(3); Columbia Building & Loan Ass'n v. Gill, Mo.App., 285 S.W. 181, 182(4); Pritchard v. People's Bank of Holcomb, 198 Mo.App. 597, 200 S.W. 665, 666(1).12 Since defendants charge 'a mut......
-
American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Shrock, 25122
...McDonough, 33 Mo. 412, 415; R. S. Jacobs Banking Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank, Mo.App., 34 S.W.2d 173, 183(3); Columbia Building & Loan Ass'n v. Gill, Mo.App., 285 S.W. 181, 182(4); Pritchard v. People's Bank of Holcomb, 198 Mo.App. 597, 200 S.W. 665, 666(1).1 A Cited in 46 C.J.S. Insurance ......
-
Handly v. Lyons
...Equity § 47, p. 871. Missouri cases recognizing this exception include Wilkins v. Bell's Estate, supra, and Columbia Building & Loan Ass'n v. Gill, Mo.App., 285 S.W. 181. We quote the exceptive rule as it is stated in Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, Fifth Ed., Sec. 847, p. 'Mistake of Law A......