Curry v. Dahlberg
Decision Date | 09 December 1937 |
Parties | Charles C. Curry, Appellant, v. B. G. Dahlberg |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Rehearing Granted, Reported at 341 Mo. 897 at 910.
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. James F Green, Judge; Opinion on Motion for Rehearing reported in 112 S.W.2d 345.
Motion overruled.
Burnett Stern & Liberman, Samuel H. Liberman and Robert L Aronson for appellant.
(1) The theory adopted at the trial will prevail on appeal. Knapp v. George Knapp & Co., 127 Mo. 70, 29 S.W. 885; Harger v. Barrett, 319 Mo. 633, 5 S.W.2d 1100; Titus v. North K. C. Devel. Co., 264 Mo. 229, 174 S.W. 432. (2) In equity cases the appellate court reviews, and passes upon the merits of, the entire case. Price v. Morrison, 291 Mo. 249, 236 S.W. 297; Brightwell v. McAfee, 249 Mo. 562, 155 S.W. 820.
Ewing, Ewing & Ewing for respondent.
However, because respondent did not see fit to raise the question in the court below is no reason why it may not be raised here by the court of its own motion. The rule of law is: "When the defendant does not set up the defense of illegality (to the contract), but such illegality appears from the case as made by either the plaintiff or defendant, it becomes the duty of the court sua sponte to refuse to entertain the action." 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2 Ed.) 1015. The authorities in this country and in England are overwhelmingly and almost unanimously in favor of the above rule. We cite the following English cases: Scott v. Brown, 2 Q. B. 724; Ribbans v. Crickett, 1 B. & P. 264; Evans v. Richardson, 3 Meriv. 469.
This case, coming recently to the writer, is an action to recover certain amounts alleged to be due plaintiff under a contract made in July, 1914. Suit was commenced in 1918. The amount alleged to be due plaintiff, under the facts stated in the second count of his fourth amended petition is $ 43,529.77. In other counts, it was alleged that other and additional amounts were due plaintiff but that an accounting was necessary to determine these amounts and the total sum due from defendant to plaintiff. The court sustained a demurrer to all counts except the second, and upon trial on the second count, before the court without a jury, finding and judgment was for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed from this judgment.
One phase of this case was before this court in Dahlberg v. Fisse, 328 Mo. 213, 40 S.W.2d 606. The second count of the petition upon which the case was tried contained substantially all of the allegations set out in Dahlberg v. Fisse. Because of the view we take, it is not necessary to rule the assignments on the demurrers, so we will not state the allegations made in other counts. Plaintiff was engaged in the lumber business. He had started to work in that business when he was sixteen years old and, in 1914, had been engaged in that business for about thirty years. He was not a lawyer. Defendant was described as a commerce expert or rate expert, "and as such had formed an organization for the acquisition of contracts for refunds exacted in violation of the maximum freight rate acts of Missouri of 1905 and 1907." [See State ex rel. Barker v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 265 Mo. 646, 178 S.W. 129; White v. Delano, 270 Mo. 16, 191 S.W. 1012; State of Missouri v. C., B. & Q. Railroad Co., 241 U.S. 533, 36 S.Ct. 715, 60 L.Ed. 1148; Missouri Rate Cases (Knott v. C., B. & Q. Railroad Co.), 230 U.S. 474, 33 S.Ct. 975, 57 L.Ed. 1571.] In July, 1914, defendant had eight solicitors in Missouri who were seeking to persuade shippers in Missouri to turn over their claims for freight overcharges to defendant for collection. Defendant was not a lawyer but signed the claimants' names, to petitions and claims filed in court, "by B. G. Dahlberg as agent for the petitioners," and had them presented by lawyers employed by him.
Contracts made between such shippers and defendant usually contained the following provisions:
The circumstances of plaintiff's relations with defendant, and the terms of the contract sued on, are stated in plaintiff's brief, as follows:
Memo:
To continue reading
Request your trial