General Electric Co. v. Interstate Electric Co.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 12935.,12935. |
| Citation | 204 S.W. 933 |
| Parties | GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. INTERSTATE ELECTRIC CO. (BATEMAN, Intervener). |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County ; Daniel E. Bird, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Suit for an accounting and for appointment of a receiver by the General Electric Company against the Interstate Electric Company. A receiver was appointed and Charles G. Bateman intervened, filing a claim against defendant. The claim was disallowed and intervener appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to allow claim.
Walsh & Aylward, of Kansas City, for appellant. Williams, Guffin & Field, of Kansas City, for respondent.
The General Electric Company, a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical supplies, brought suit in equity for an accounting and for the appointment of a receiver for the Interstate Electric Company. A receiver, Donald W. Johnson, was duly appointed, and he ever since has been in charge of defendant's affairs. In the course of that litigation, the chancellor made an order, requiring every one having claims against the defendant company to file same with the clerk, and pursuant thereto intervener, Bateman, filed his claim, supported by affidavit, based upon two notes, one for $2,000 and the other for $1,500, the two aggregating $3,500, executed by the Interstate Electric Company, payable to intervener Bateman, with 8 per cent. interest from date compounding annually. The receiver acting in behalf of the company and all creditors, filed an objection thereto which was in effect a general denial. The chancellor heard the evidence offered by the intervener in support of his claim, and at the close thereof disallowed it on the ground that intervener had not lent the money to the defendant, but had merely invested in the stock of the company. The receiver offered no testimony in opposition to the claim. Intervener has appealed.
Mr. Bateman was a traveling salesman for the General Electric Company, with his headquarters at Toledo, Ohio. He had $3,500 in a savings bank there drawing 4 per cent. interest, and, upon representations from the president of the Interstate Electric Company as well as from the secretary thereof, and influenced by the example of a big manufacturer of Chicago, was induced to lend said money to said company, taking its notes as, aforesaid. The notes specified that certain stock of the company and of a certain other company was put up as collateral security. Some, if not all, of the company stock was issued to and in the name of one Mackey, but this fact was not observed by intervener.
There is no question but that the notes were executed and delivered, and that intervener's money was turned over to defendant in exchange for said notes, and the money went into the company's coffers. The notes were introduced in evidence, and stand admitted, since there was no denial under oath. The intervener's checks for the money to the defendant were introduced in evidence, and so were the defendant's bank books, showing that the defendant received the money. It was further shown that defendant gave checks to intervener in payment of interest on the notes, but that one of them, for $70, was protested, and intervener, in fact, received nothing for said check.
As stated, there was no evidence contradicting the above, nor were there any circumstances in evidence tending to contradict intervener's proof that the transactions were a loan. And the notes themselves, signed by the company and admitted, made a prima facie case, entitling intervener to recover in the absence of a defense, or evidence of a defense, by the receiver. 8 Cyc. 281; Holmes v. Farris, 97 Mo. App. 305, 71 S. W. 116; Golden City Banking Co. v. Morrow, 184 Mo. App. 515, 170 S. W. 448; Davidson v. Spitscaufsky, 182 S. W. 106.
It is true intervener, in the course of his evidence, very frankly said that in the negotiations for the loan it was suggested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canada v. Shuttee
... ... Shawhan v. Shawhan Dist ... Co., 197 S.W. 369; General Electric Company v ... Interstate Elec. Co., 204 S.W. 933; Holmes v ... ...
-
Early v. Smallwood
... ... 574; Kneisley Lumber Co. v ... Stoddard, 113 Mo.App. 309; General Fire Ext. Co. v ... Scwartz, 165 Mo. 171. (2) The Coen Building ... 438; Cox v. Sloan, 158 Mo. 429; ... General Elec. Co. v. Interstate Elec. Co., 204 S.W ... 933. (3) The court properly entered a separate ... ...
-
Southgate Bank and Trust Co. v. May
...or where the evidence is not in conflict, Eckle v. Ryland, 256 Mo. 424, 165 S.W. 1035, 1038 (1914), and General Electric Co. v. Interstate Electric Co., 204 S.W. 933, 934 (Mo.App.1918), no deference is due the trial court's judgment. Where credibility of witnesses is not involved, the rule ......
-
L.W.F., In Interest of
...or where the evidence is not in conflict, Eckle v. Ryland, 256 Mo. 424, 165 S.W. 1035, 1038 (1914), and General Electric Co. v. Interstate Electric Co., 204 S.W. 933, 934 (Mo.App.1918), no deference is due the trial court's judgment. Where credibility of witnesses is not involved, the rule ......