Duncan's Adm'r v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 31 July 1853 |
| Citation | 18 Mo. 403 |
| Parties | DUNCAN'S ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent, v. FISHER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The petition stated a case of trover and conversion. The proof was, that the goods were lost by the negligence of the defendant. Held, the plaintiff could not recover, without amending his petition.
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.
Hayden, for appellant.
Gardenhire, for respondent.
Duncan, in his petition, charges that he left certain articles of personal property with the defendant, Fisher, at St. Joseph, which the defendant undertook, for a consideration, to keep safely, “and forward in a safe and careful manner, without unnecessary delay, to the mouth of Big Tarkio, in Holt county.” The default of the defendant is thus charged in the petition: “The defendant, after he had received the goods, failed and refused to forward them to the mouth of Big Tarkio, or to any other place where he could have sent them to plaintiff, but, on the contrary thereof, defendant has retained said goods and chattels, and has utterly refused to deliver the same to the plaintiff, although demanded; but plaintiff says that the defendant has converted said goods and chattels to his own use, and still refuses to deliver the same to the plaintiff, or otherwise account for the same.” The defendant, in his answer, alleges, that he forwarded the goods, and denies the conversion of them to his use.
After the evidence was closed at the trial, the court instructed the jury, “that if the plaintiff left the goods with the defendant, and the defendant agreed to keep them and forward them to the plaintiff, and received pay therefor, and that the goods were afterwards lost to the plaintiff by the neglect of the defendant, the jury should find for the plaintiff the value of the articles so lost.”
1. The case made in the petition is clearly a case of trover and conversion. A bailee, whose duty it was to forward the goods, is charged with the failure to forward them, keeping them in his possession, refusing to deliver them, and converting them to his own use. The jury are told that, upon such a petition, the plaintiff is entitled to their verdict, if he placed the goods in the hands of the defendant to be forwarded, and they were lost by the negligence of the defendant. The instruction thus given puts before the jury a different case from that made in the petition. The change made in our practice does not relieve the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diehl v. A. P. Green Fire Brick Company
...plaintiff to recover on a cause of action not embodied in his petition. Beck v. Ferrara, 19 Mo. 30; Link v. Vaughn, 17 Mo. 585; Duncan v. Fisher, 18 Mo. 403; Robinson v. Rice, 20 Mo. 229; Huston v. Forsythe Scale Works, 56 Mo. 416; Fyerman v. Cemetery Assn., 61 Mo. 489; Ensworthy v. Barton,......
-
State ex rel. Lipic v. Flynn
...173 S.W.2d 826, 835(27). [4]Blum, Adm'r.d.b.n. v. Frost, 234 Mo.App. 695, 116 S.W.2d 541; Polk's Adm'r. v. Allen, 19 Mo. 467; Duncan's Admr. v. Fisher, 18 Mo. 403. [5]St. Louis Catering Co. v. Glancy, 294 438, 456(1), 242 SW. 392, 396(1); Sebastian County Coal & Mining Co. v. Fidelity Fuel ......
-
Bell v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.
...in which the deceased was placed. O'Donnell v. Mo. Pacific Ry., 7 Mo. App. 190; Zimmerman v. Hannibal, etc., Ry. Co., 71 Mo. 484; Duncan v. Fisher, 18 Mo. 403; Harris v. Railroad, 37 Mo. 307; Link v. Vaughn, 17 Mo. 585; Newham v. Kenton, 79 Mo. 382. (5) There is no affirmative evidence of t......
-
Sherman v. Commercial Printing Co.
... ... Respondent could recover only for ... conversion, if at all, in this case. Duncan v ... Fisher, 18 Mo. 403; McCormack v. Gilliland, 76 ... Mo. 655; Kennedy v. Pruitt, 24 Mo.App. 414. The ... ...