Hatfield v. Swift

• Decision Date: 01 December 1913
• Citation: 174 Mo. App. 705,161 S.W. 359
• Parties: HATFIELD v. SWIFT.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

161 S.W. 359

174 Mo. App. 705

HATFIELD v. SWIFT.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 1, 1913.

1. TRIAL (§ 191) — INSTRUCTIONS—PROVINCE OF JURY.

Where, in an action for services under a contract of employment, there was evidence that defendant personally employed plaintiff at $100 per month, a request to charge that, though defendant told plaintiff to take charge of certain mules, that statement in itself would not constitute a contract on defendant's part individually was properly refused as characterizing such acts as a matter of law, instead of charging that the acts would constitute a contract if accepted by plaintiff, unless plaintiff knew defendant was acting for other parties.

2. TRIAL (§ 244) — INSTRUCTIONS — PARTICULARIZING EVIDENCE.

A request to charge that a certain statement made by defendant to plaintiff would not constitute a contract of employment on defendant's part individually was improper as commenting on or particularizing certain evidence.

3. TRIAL (§ 260) — INSTRUCTIONS — REQUEST TO CHARGE.

Defendant was not entitled to the giving of a request to charge where the subject was amply

covered by another instruction given as modified, though complaint was made of the modification which, however, could not have misled the jury.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; W. K. Amick, Judge.

Action by James A. Hatfield against L. A. Swift. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John E. Dolman and Joseph McDonald, both of St. Joseph, for appellant. Mytton & Parkinson, of St. Joseph, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

This is an action on an account for services alleged to have been rendered to defendant at his request. The judgment in the trial court was for plaintiff.

In view of our obligation to stand by the verdict of a jury when it is supported by any substantial evidence, we do not discover any good reason upon which to base this appeal. Defendant makes a statement in detail of the connection which he had with the St. Joseph Stockyards and of the doings of the Blair Horse & Mule Company and the Ben Miller Mule Company, showing the latter quit business in debt to the former, etc., and that plaintiff had been its employé up to the time it ceased business.

Plaintiff's statement sets out that defendant was a large stockholder in the Stockyards Bank in St. Joseph, which "financed" the above companies.

While these matters may have had their proper place in giving a right understanding to the jury,...