Frohoff v. Adams, 24092.

Decision Date14 September 1937
Docket NumberNo. 24092.,24092.
Citation108 S.W.2d 615
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesFROHOFF v. ADAMS et al.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. Joynt, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Action by Donald Frohoff, a minor, by his next friend, Arthur J. Frohoff, against E. M. Adams and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and named defendant appeals.

Reversed as to appellant, and affirmed as to other defendants.

Max Sigoloff, of St. Louis, for appellant.

SUTTON, Commissioner.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between a motortruck in which he was riding, and another motortruck designated in the evidence as a trailer truck. The collision occurred at Ninth and Market streets, in the city of St. Louis, on February 21, 1934. The truck in which plaintiff was riding was being operated by plaintiff's father, Arthur J. Frohoff.

The petition alleges that, at the time of the collision, the truck in which plaintiff was riding was being operated southwardly on Ninth street, and that defendants E. M. Adams, St. Louis-Wichita Motor Freight, Inc., and Beekman Terminal & Forwarding Company, acting by and through their agents, servants, and employees, were in charge of and operating a motortruck eastwardly on Market street.

The answer of defendant Adams is a general denial. The other defendants did not answer, but made default.

The trial, with a jury, resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against all of the defendants for $2,500, and judgment was entered accordingly. Defendant E. M. Adams appeals.

Appellant assigns error here for the refusal of his instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. He puts the assignment on the ground that there was no evidence to show that appellant was the owner of the trailer truck involved in the accident, or that the driver was in his employ.

Arthur J. Frohoff testified, for plaintiff, that there appeared on the trailer truck the following names: E. M. Adams, Beekman Terminal & Forwarding Company, and St. Louis-Wichita Motor Freight, Inc.; that he could not say what part of the trailer truck the names were on; that he did not know the color of the truck; that he did not know whether these names were on the trailer or the tractor, the front or the rear; and that he did not know what make of truck it was.

Appellant testified that on February 21, 1934, he resided in Wichita, Kan.; that at that time he worked for the Civil Works Administration as an appraiser; that he did not at any time during the month of February, 1934, have any one operating a truck of any kind for him in the city of St. Louis; that he did not know that there was the name of E. M. Adams on a truck that was involved in an accident at Ninth and Market streets on February 21, 1934; that he was engaged in this work for the Civil Works Administration from January 3 until ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Sowers v. Howard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 4, 1940
    ...Coal & Coke Co., 19 S.W.2d 766; Chiles v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 91 S.W.2d 164; Dorsett v. Pevely Dairy Co., 124 S.W.2d 624; Frohoff v. Adams, 108 S.W.2d 615. (2) There substantial evidence of agency in that: (a) It is admitted that Howard was acting in the company's interests in bringing his ......
  • Schaefer v. Magel's Estate
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 14, 1937
  • Schaefer v. Magel Estate
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 14, 1937
  • West American Insurance Company v. Bogush, C.A. NO. 03C-11-217-JRS (DE 4/12/2006)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • April 12, 2006
    ...convincing.") (citing Ford v. Hankins, 96 So. 349 (Ala. 1923); Patterson v. Milligan, 66 So. 914 (Ala. Ct. App. 1914); Frohoff v. Adams, 108 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 1937); Bogorad, 176 A.D. 774; Nemzer v. Newkirk Ave. Auto. Co., 154 N.Y.S. 117 (N.Y. App. Term 1915); Williams v. Bass, 8 Ten......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT