Furlong v. Druhe
| Decision Date | 07 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 19915.,19915. |
| Citation | 2 S.W.2d 162 |
| Parties | FURLONG v. DRUHE. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. Calhoun, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Suit by F. E. Furlong against Marguerite Druhe. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Ryan & Hopewell, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Joseph J. Ward, Davis & Todd and William Kohn, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
This suit was brought by respondent, who was plaintiff in the court below, against defendant. The petition alleges that on the 16th day of June, 1925, plaintiff and defendant entered into a partnership to buy and sell stocks, bonds, and other securities in their individual names; that by the terms of the partnership agreement, plaintiff and defendant were the owners of all the assets and profits of said business in proportion to the amount of capital invested by each, and that they were to share in the losses sustained, if any, in proportion to the amount of capital invested by each. Plaintiff alleges that since the beginning of the partnership, and while they were conducting said business, the defendant has at divers times appropriated to her own use from the receipts of said business certain sums of money belonging to the firm; that such sums were in excess of the amount which defendant was entitled to receive; and that defendant concealed this practice from plaintiff. The petition asks for a restraining order. The answer was a general denial.
Preliminary to the final judgment the restraining order was issued, and later a temporary injunction granted. However, this appeal is from the final judgment.
The final judgment of the court was that a partnership agreement was entered into on the 16th day of June, 1925, for the purpose of carrying on and conducting a partnership business as alleged in the petition. The order and judgment of the court was that the partnership be dissolved; that an accounting be made; that defendant be permanently restrained from appropriating the partnership assets to her own use; that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the assets; and that the profits, if any, be divided between the plaintiff and defendant thirteen twenty-thirds to plaintiff and ten twenty-thirds to defendant.
The evidence discloses that plaintiff was in the hardware business on Market street, in the city of St. Louis, and that defendant was a stenographer employed by a certain firm in St. Louis. They had been "keeping company" for some time prior to the time of this alleged contract of partnership. Plaintiff would see defendant regularly once or twice each week, and, according to defendant's testimony, they were engaged to be married.
The evidence as offered on the part of the plaintiff was to the effect that on or about the 16th day of June, 1925, he and his brother owned a $1,000 Liberty bond, each having a half interest in it. He discussed the question of buying this bond with defendant, and she said that she would "like to get in on it." Thereupon she gave plaintiff $400, to which he added $100, and acquired the full interest in the bond. He gave the bond to defendant to keep in her safe deposit box in a certain trust company in St. Louis. After that they considered the matter of purchasing some stock in a certain mining company, but the stock advanced to such a price that they decided that they would not buy. In the meantime the Liberty bond had been converted into cash and the proceeds deposited in a bank. Thereafter defendant called up plaintiff and told him that there was a certain company going to put its stock on the market, and that she, being an employee of such company, could get its stock for $20 per share, and that it would possibly go up to $40 or $50 per share, and asked him if he wanted to "get in on it." He told her he did and then gave her a check for the $1,000. Of this amount $400 was her money. She was unable to purchase the 50 shares, but bought 46 shares for $920. In order to get this stock she had to buy it in her own name. She purchased the stock and kept it in her safe deposit box. Afterwards 21 shares of this stock was sold for a little more than $1,000. This money was placed in a joint account with a trust company. There were 25 shares of stock left, which defendant continued to hold in her name. Plaintiff testified that it was understood that they were to buy and sell stocks and bonds as partners. However he testified, when pressed for a direct answer on that question, as follows:
After the purchase of this stock $80 was left and was placed in a savings account, opened in their joint names. Plaintiff later received this $80, together with $10 as an advance or loan from the accumulated dividends. The dividends were from time to time deposited in the savings account, and it was understood that neither would draw from this account without the consent of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fish v. Fish
...Compara Baum v. Stephenson, 133 Mo.App. 187, 113 S.W. 225, 227(1); Schindler v. Sorbitz, Mo.App., 268 S.W. 432, 434(3); Furlong v. Druhe, Mo.App., 2 S.W.2d 162, 165(6).17 Boone v. Oetting, 342 Mo. 269, 114 S.W.2d 981, 983(2); Finley v. Williams, 325 Mo. 688, 29 S.W.2d 103, 104(3); Folger v.......
-
Edwards v. Sittner
...is a mere conclusion. Baum v. Stephenson, 133 Mo. App. 187, 113 S.W. 225; Schindler v. Sorbitz, Mo.App., 268 S.W. 432; Furlong v. Druhe, Mo.App., 2 S.W.2d 162. We are not holding that the plaintiff has no remedy at law to collect that, which is due him, if anything, but we do hold that the ......