Cross v. Gimlin, 42612
| Decision Date | 09 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 42612,42612,1 |
| Citation | 256 S.W.2d 812 |
| Parties | CROSS v. GIMLIN et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert M. Zeppenfeld, St. Louis, for Albert S. Gimlin, appellant.
Flynn & Parker, Francis C. Flynn, Norman C. Parker, St. Louis, for respondent.
Action for one-half of profits under an agreement, alleged to have been made July 16, 1925, for building and selling two and four family flats. Plaintiff had judgment for $4,750 with 6% interest from September 1, 1926, and defendant has appealed. Since the total amount in dispute exceeds $7,500, we have jurisdiction. See Huttig v. Brennan, 328 Mo. 471, 41 S.W.2d 1054; Union Nat. Bank of Wichita, Kan. v. Lamb, 358 Mo. 65, 213 S.W.2d 416.
The case was tried by the court without a jury and sole issue here is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment. Plaintiff cites Section 510.310 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. and Middleton v. Reece, Mo.Sup., 236 S.W.2d 335, saying the judgment should not be set aside unless clearly erroneous and that we should defer to the trial court's findings when the case turns upon the credibility, weight and value of the oral testimony of witnesses who have appeared personally before him. However, the cited section also says: 'The appellate court shall review the case upon both the law and the evidence as in suits of an equitable nature.' As we recently said concerning such review: "The question for our determination is therefore not merely one of whether the court's finding was supported by substantial evidence. On the contrary, it is our duty to make our own independent finding of the facts and reach our own conclusion as to where the weight of the evidence lies. Whatever findings the lower court may have made are in no sense binding upon us, although in matters where the evidence is conflicting and close we shall have due regard for the lower court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.' Redden v Boehmer, Mo.App., 223 S.W.2d 127.' Faire v. Burke, Mo.Sup., 252 S.W.2d 289, 290.
After submission here, we adopted an opinion affirming the judgment but thereafter granted a rehearing. We have now come to the conclusion on the whole record that plaintiff's evidence (which was his own testimony only) was too indefinite and uncertain to support the judgment. The parties completed four flats in 1926 and all were sold by February 1927. They never agreed upon the financial result of their operations but this suit was not begun until May 1931. Plaintiff's investigation as to costs, upon which his testimony at the trial was based, was only begun after his deposition was taken in 1946. No excuse is made for the long delay in this case and such pendency of litigation should not be tolerated. It should be noted, however, that plaintiff's present attorneys have recently come into the case.
Both parties testified that the four flats were sold for the total amount of $76,000. Plaintiff's petition alleged 'that the costs of construction, labor and materials, value of the lots, plans, interest, commissions and all proper charges totalled the sum of $65,000.00', but plaintiff's estimate at the trial was $58,000. (The trial court found the total cost to be $66,500.) The first point of disagreement is the terms of the contract between the parties. Plaintiff said he was to supervise the construction, obtaining the labor and material, and defendant was to finance the job; neither party was to be paid any salary but were to split the profits. A written contract was prepared by defendant, dated July 16, 1925. Plaintiff said the work started the first part of July and that defendant brought out the contract 'a few days after we started to work.' It provided that 'in the event loans are made to carry on the erection and completion of buildings each party hereto will pay interest, commission, and other expenses in connection with loan, share and share alike.' Plaintiff said he would not sign the contract because of this provision. The contract also provided the parties were forming a partnership, 'each sharing one-half the profits and losses.' Plaintiff said they also talked about incorporating and he agreed to do so with defendant and his wife, but defendant did not want his wife in it. The work went on without any such arrangements or the execution of a contract in writing. The trial court found there was no partnership but did not make a specific finding as to the terms of the agreement between the parties, except that plaintiff was to receive one-half of the profits.
The lots were conveyed to defendant and his wife, and it is conceded that defendant paid the purchase price. Plaintiff said defendant told him the price was $50 per front foot or $7,950. Defendant claims it was $9,950 because the corner lot cost $100 per front foot and the rest $50. The method of operation was that plaintiff ordered the material and turned the bills over to defendant for payment. Plaintiff did not keep any record of the amount of these bills and did not know what they were. Plaintiff kept the labor pay roll books and made a duplicate copy for defendant every Saturday morning. Defendant would go to the bank and get the pay roll money. Plaintiff said he still had these labor pay rolls at home but did not produce them at the trial. He was asked if he recalled 'what the cost of labor was on these four houses' and said: 'I think it was around $8500.00 or $8600.00.' Defendant's objection was sustained as to his supposition, on the ground that these records were the best evidence; and nothing further was offered as to labor costs. Therefore, there was no competent evidence in the record as to labor costs.
Plaintiff did testify as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emerson v. Treadway
...of the witnesses' [Section 510.310(4)], we cannot avoid the responsibility of independent review and consideration [Cross v. Gimlin, Mo.Sup., 256 S.W.2d 812(3); Faire v. Burke, Mo.Sup., 252 S.W.2d 289, 290(1)]. Similarly, although '(t)he judgment shall not be set aside unless clearly errono......
-
Petersen's Estate, In re, 45389
...the trial court unless satisfied that the findings should have been otherwise. Middleton v. Reece, Mo., 236 S.W.2d 335, 341; Cross v. Gimlin, Mo., 256 S.W.2d 812; Bohnsack v. Hanebrink, Mo., 240 S.W.2d 903; Cosentine v. Heffelfinger, 360 Mo. 535, 229 S.W.2d 546, 549; Faire v. Burke, 363 Mo.......
-
Browder v. Milla
...requires. Parks v. Thompson, supra; Faire v. Burke, 363 Mo. 562, 252 S.W.2d 289; Minor v. Lillard, Mo.Sup., 289 S.W.2d 1; Cross v. Gimlin, Mo.Sup., 256 S.W.2d 812; Dye v. School District No. 32 of Pulaski County, 355 Mo. 231, 195 S.W.2d 874; Lynn v. Coates, Mo.Sup., 142 S.W.2d 1014; Lastofk......
-
Parks v. Thompson, 44712
...and close we shall have due regard for the lower court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Cross v. Gimlin, Mo., 256 S.W.2d 812[2, 3]; House v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., Mo., 217 S.W.2d 382; Dye v. School Dist. No. 32, 355 Mo. 231, 195 S.W.2d 874, 878[4, 16]; Lowtrip......