Dawes v. Starrett

• Citation: 82 S.W.2d 43,336 Mo. 897
• Parties: Cecil C. Dawes v. John W. Starrett, Claude Old and the Prudential Insurance Company of America, a Corporation, Appellants
• Decision Date: 17 April 1935
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

82 S.W.2d 43

336 Mo. 897

Cecil C. Dawes v. John W. Starrett, Claude Old and the Prudential Insurance Company of America, a Corporation, Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 17, 1935

Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; Hon. A. W. Walker Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

C. M Hulen, J. A. Walden and Henry I. Eager for appellants; Aubrey Hammett and Meservey, Michaels, Blackmar, Newkirk & Eager of counsel.

(1) Plaintiff necessarily alleged his indictment, and to escape its otherwise conclusive effect, alleged perjury and fraud on the part of all defendants and a disbelief of all defendants in his guilt; these allegations were not proved by any substantial evidence and the various separate demurrers to the evidence should have been sustained; another reason for this is the uncontradicted showing (by plaintiff's own witnesses) of a full and fair submission to counsel and to the prosecuting attorney. State v. Wissing, 187 Mo 96, 85 S.W. 557; State v. Shour, 196 Mo. 202, 95 S.W. 405; Wilkinson v. McGee, 265 Mo. 574, 584, 587; Nolen v. Kaufman, 70 Mo.App. 651; Firer v. Lowery, 59 Mo.App. 98; Peck v. Chouteau, 91 Mo. 149, 3 S.W. 577; Sharpe v. Johnson, 76 Mo. 670; Wilcox v. Gilmore, 320 Mo. 980, 8 S.W.2d 961; Harris v. Railroad, 172 Mo.App. 261, 157 S.W. 893; Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U.S. 187; Boeger v. Langenberg, 97 Mo. 397, 11 S.W. 223; Brant v. Higgins, 10 Mo. 734; Williams v. Vanmeter, 8 Mo. 339; Eckerle v. Higgins, 159 Mo.App. 184, 140 S.W. 616; Laughlin v. St. Louis Union Trust, 50 S.W.2d 93; Randol v. Kline's, 49 S.W.2d 112; Hanser v. Bieber, 271 Mo. 326, 197 S.W. 68; Randol v. Kline's, 18 S.W.2d 500; Steppuhn v. Chicago Great Western, 199 Mo.App. 571, 204 S.W. 579; Mockowik v. Ry. Co., 196 Mo. 550, 94 S.W. 256; Atherton v. Ry. Mail, 221 S.W. 752; Carp v. Ins. Co., 203 Mo. 340; Emery v. New York Life, 316 Mo. 1300, 295 S.W. 571; New York Life v. Fletcher, 117 U.S. 519; Zeilman v. Central Mutual, 22 S.W.2d 91; Zeidel v. Conn. General, 44 F.2d 843; Adler v. Planter's Hotel, 181 S.W. 1062; Cote v. Gillette, 186 S.W. 540; Hanna v. Minn. Mutual, 241 Mo. 402, 145 S.W. 412; People v. Barnes, 143 N.Y.S. 885; Dunn v. State, 96 Fla. 766, 119 So. 330; People v. Solomon, 12 A.D. 627, 42 N.Y.S. 573; Wells v. Natl. Surety, 194 Mo.App. 389, 184 S.W. 474; Sec. 4079, R. S. 1929. (2) Evidence of the wealth or financial standing of one defendant (the Prudential Insurance Company) was admitted; this was inadmissible for any purpose and its admission constituted prejudicial error. The court also erred in permitting Mr. Storts to give his opinions as to the probability of a conviction, etc., in admitting Exhibit 13 (affidavit) and Exhibit 22 (list made by plaintiff), various statements of plaintiff regarding the state of Exhibit C (its markings, etc.), plaintiff's conclusion as to the meaning of Exhibit 8, Exhibit 9 and Exhibit D-2, and testimony of Brunk as to his own practice, etc.; and the court erred in excluding evidence of various witnesses (experts for the purpose of this case) as to the results of their examination of the complicated and voluminous records and exhibits. Wolfersberger v. Miller, 39 S.W.2d 758; Schafer v. Ostmann, 148 Mo.App. 652, 129 S.W. 63; Stansberry v. McDowell, 186 S.W. 762; Kennedy v. Holladay, 25 Mo.App. 503; Rosenfeld v. Siegfried, 91 Mo.App. 180; Masonic Mutual Benefit Society v. Lackland, 97 Mo. 137, 10 S.W. 895; Louisiana Purchase Exposition Co. v. Kuenzel, 108 Mo.App. 114, 82 S.W. 1099; Citizens Trust Co. v. Ward, 195 Mo.App. 223, 190 S.W. 364; State v. Colson, 30 S.W.2d 62. (3) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instructions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and each of them for the various reasons set out in the argument (the explanation of such reasons takes considerable space and we omit them here for that reason); and likewise erred (for reasons similarly set out) in refusing defendants' Instructions B, C, F and J as offered and in modifying same and in refusing Instruction D-61; and likewise erred in refusing the various special demurrers, asking the withdrawal of various issues from the jury (after the overruling of the respective general demurrers) being D-21 to D-37 and D-41 to D-57. The whole group of instructions as given was a radical departure from the allegations of the petition and permitted plaintiff to recover without proof of perjury, fraud or disbelief (this, in addition to specific errors in the various instructions). Karte v. Brockman Co., 247 S.W. 417; Kidd v. Kansas City P. & L. Co., 239 S.W. 584; Young v. Dunlap, 195 Mo.App. 119, 190 S.W. 1041; State ex rel. v. Melton, 213 Mo.App. 662, 251 S.W. 447; Turney v. Baker, 103 Mo.App. 390, 77 S.W. 479; Wilkinson v. McGee, 265 Mo. 574, 178 S.W. 471; Carp v. Insurance Co., 203 Mo. 354, 101 S.W. 78; Laughlin v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 50 S.W.2d 93; Randol v. Kline's, 49 S.W.2d 112; Hanser v. Bieber, 271 Mo. 326, 197 S.W. 68; Ferneau v. Whitford, 39 Mo.App. 311; Wade v. Hardy, 75 Mo. 394; Iron Mountain Bank of St. L. v. Murdock, 62 Mo. 70; Loving Co. v. Cattle Co., 176 Mo. 330, 75 S.W. 1095; Glass v. Gelvin, 80 Mo. 297; Iowa Bonding Co. v. Marceline, 255 S.W. 578; Stenson v. Lancaster, 178 Mo.App. 340, 165 S.W. 1158; Stones v. Richmond, 21 Mo.App. 17; 2 C. J. 471; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 176 S.W. 11; Whipple v. Building & Loan Assn., 55 Mo.App. 554; Simms v. Dunham, 203 S.W. 652; Rawlings v. Railroad, 175 Mo. 935; Silverthorne v. Lumber Co., 190 Mo.App. 716, 176 S.W. 441; Bray v. Marshall, 75 Mo. 327; Milton v. Railroad Co., 193 Mo. 46, 91 S.W. 949; Mayger v. Nichols, 186 Mo.App. 102, 171 S.W. 593; Fensky v. Casualty Co., 264 Mo. 167, 174 S.W. 416; Peterson v. Fleming, 297 S.W. 168; Eckhard v. St. Louis Transit Co., 190 Mo. 593, 89 S.W. 602; Hughes v. Rader, 183 Mo. 630, 82 S.W. 32; Morrow v. Ry. Co., 220 Mo.App. 518, 276 S.W. 1030; Allamong v. People, 75 Mo.App. 276; Zumwalt v. C. & A., 266 S.W. 717; Andrew v. Linebaugh, 260 Mo. 623, 169 S.W. 145; Harris v. Railroad, 172 Mo.App. 268, 157 S.W. 893; Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U.S. 187; Brant v. Higgins, 10 Mo. 734; Feil v. Bank, 269 S.W. 942; Rice v. Bridge Co., 216 S.W. 751; Yontz v. McVean, 202 Mo.App. 385, 217 S.W. 1000; DeWitt v. Syfon, 202 Mo.App. 473, 211 S.W. 716; Thomas v. Smith, 51 Mo.App. 615; Boeger v. Langenberg, 97 Mo. 398, 11 S.W. 223; Bixler Co. v. Riney, 7 S.W.2d 396; Diel v. Missouri Pacific, 37 Mo.App. 459; Cote v. Gillette, 186 S.W. 540; Emery v. New York Life, 316 Mo. 1300, 295 S.W. 571; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Fletcher, 117 U.S. 533; Zeidel v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 44 F.2d 843; Zeilman v. Central Mutual, 22 S.W.2d 91; Scovill v. Glasner, 79 Mo. 449; Irons v. American Ry. Express, 318 Mo. 318, 300 S.W. 289; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 290 Mo. 670, 232 S.W. 100; Campbell v. Myers, 221 Mo.App. 858, 287 S.W. 845; Bowers v. Walker, 192 Mo.App. 236, 182 S.W. 116; Webb v. Byrd, 203 Mo.App. 600, 219 S.W. 683; Meysenberg v. Engelke, 18 Mo.App. 351; State v. McWilliams, 267 Mo. 437, 184 S.W. 96; State v. Burgess, 268 Mo. 407, 188 S.W. 135; Helfer v. Quarry Co., 208 Mo.App. 68, 233 S.W. 275; State v. Silva, 130 Mo. 463, 32 S.W. 1007; State v. Lentz, 184 Mo. 239, 83 S.W. 970; Wells v. Natl. Surety, 194 Mo.App. 389, 184 S.W. 474; Gordon v. Eans, 97 Mo. 608; 20 C. J. 436; Hanna v. Minn. Mutual, 241 Mo. 383, 145 S.W. 412; People v. Barnes, 143 N.Y.S. 885; Dunn v. State, 96 Fla. 766, 119 So. 330; People v. Solomon, 12 A.D. 627, 42 N.Y.S. 573; Adler v. Planters' Hotel Co., 181 S.W. 1062; Seago v. Realty Co., 185 Mo.App. 399, 170 S.W. 372; McMahon v. Maccabees, 151 Mo. 522, 52 S.W. 384; Harrison v. Bence, 270 S.W. 363; Norris v. Ry. Co., 239 Mo. 695, 144 S.W. 783; Malone v. Franke, 274 S.W. 369; Stolovey v. Fleming, 8 S.W.2d 832; Muehlebach v. Brewing Co., 242 S.W. 174; Steppuhn v. Chicago Great Western, 199 Mo.App. 571, 204 S.W. 579; Atherton v. Ry. Mail, 221 S.W. 752; Moll v. Pollock, 319 Mo. 744, 8 S.W.2d 46.

Harvey & Bellamy and Robert D. Johnson for respondent; Major J. Lilly and Hunter & Chamier of counsel.

(1) Many of the matters cited by appellants under this point of their brief relate to the weight of the evidence. This court will not pass upon the weight of the evidence. Henry v Ry. Co., 61 S.W.2d 340; Hartman v. Hartman, 284 S.W. 488; Carter v. Burns, 61 S.W.2d 93; Dunn v. Oil Development Co., 1 S.W.2d 132. In determining whether defendants' demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained, the whole evidence must be searched and plaintiff given the benefit of all facts tending to support his theory, with every reasonable inference therefrom, while contradicted evidence favorable to defendant cannot be considered but must be excluded. Clason v. Lenz, 61 S.W.2d 729; Wilhauck v. Ry. Co., 61 S.W.2d 338; Hanser v. Bieber, 271 Mo. 335. The agency of defendants Starrett and Old for defendant insurance company and whether they were acting within the scope of their employment may be proved by circumstantial evidence. The defendant insurance company is liable for the acts of its employees, Starrett and Old, and its answer in effect admits such liability. Steppuhn v. Railroad Co., 199 Mo.App. 579; Boden v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 700; Carp v. Ins. Co., 203 Mo. 348; Stubbs v. Mulholland, 168 Mo. 81; Peterson v. Flemming, 297 S.W. 168. The indictment was not conclusive proof of probable cause. There was substantial evidence that the indictment was obtained (a) by the false or fraudulent testimony of the defendants or their agents, and by their other improper means, and (b) that notwithstanding such indictment the defendants did not believe the plaintiff to be guilty. Therefore, the question of the liability of defendants was properly submitted to the jury. Carp v. Ins. Co., 203 Mo. 358; Randol v. Kline Stores, 18 S.W.2d 505; Sharpe...