Hein v. Marcante

• Citation: 113 P.2d 940,57 Wyo. 81
• Decision Date: 11 June 1941
• Docket Number: 2166
• Parties: HEIN v. MARCANTE ET AL
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

113 P.2d 940

57 Wyo. 81

HEIN v. MARCANTE ET AL

No. 2166

Supreme Court of Wyoming

June 11, 1941

APPEAL from the District Court, Lincoln County; V. J. TIDBALL Judge.

Action in replevin and for damages by Henry Hein, sole trader, doing business under the firm name and style of Table Supply against Angelo Molinar and another, wherein defendants filed a cross-petition. Angelo Molinar having died, Minnie Molinar Marcante and another, executors of the estate of Angelo Molinar, deceased, were substituted as defendants in his place. After the writ of replevin was issued the sheriff took possession of all of the property sued for, but no bond was furnished by plaintiff, and the sheriff redelivered the property to the original defendants, and the case proceeded as one for damages. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

For the appellant, there was a brief and oral argument by Clarence W Cook and Louis Kabell, Jr. of Evanston.

This case was before this court on a former appeal and was reversed and remanded. 51 Wyo. 389, 67 P.2d 196. Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment on the second trial thereof and presents the following points and authorities. The record shows that the verdicts and judgment were not sustained by sufficient evidence, are contrary to law, and against the evidence. 64 C. J. 303-1081; 46 C. J. 168-174, 182, 207-9; Bothe v. Morris (Ark.) 146 S.W. 1184; Wilson v Manville (Ia.) 188 N.W. 932; Burt v. Orr (Kan.) 244 P. 1044; Brunnabend v. Tibbles (Mont.) 246 P. 536; Maly v. Lamerton (Okla.) 240 P. 716; British Empire Ins. Co. v. Hasenmayer (Ore.) 178 P. 180; Krummen Motor Bus Co. v. Lumber Co. (Ark.) 300 S.W. 389; Miller v. Miller (Kan.) 105 P. 544; Snowball v. Maney Bros. & Co. (Wyo.) 270 P. 167; Allegheny v. Hillman & Sons Co. (Penna.) 118 A. 900; Gunnell v. Largilliere Co. (Ida.) 85 A. L. R. 690; 26 R. C. L. 1068; Sec. 75; Continental Gin Co. v. De Bord (Okla.) 128 P. 159; Bills v. Hawes (Colo.) 59 P. 422; Lomax v. Walk (Ore.) 54 P. 199; Ray v. Navarre (Okla.) 147 P. 1019; Becker v. McKenzie (Ore.) 144 P. 434; Wettlin v. Jones (Wyo.) 234 P. 515; Wynn v. Vessey (Wash.) 221 P. 295; Brainard v. Lane, 26 Ohio State 632. The court erred in refusing to give instructions requested by plaintiff referred to in the record. Sec. 89-4014, 89-2605, R. S. 1931; Pugh v. Calloway, 10 Ohio State 488; Boswell v. First National Bank, 16 Wyo. 161; Dow v. Bryant, 28 Wyo. 508; Rogers v. Benford (Okla.) 201 P. 646; Mims v. Bennett (S. C.) 78 A. L. R. 360; Peterson v. Nat. Bank (Ida.) 6 P.2d 145; Douglass v. Kraft (Cal.) 43 L. R. A. 768; 26 R. C. L. 1068, 1149; Lomax v. Walk (Ore.) 54 P. 199; Brook v. Bayless (Okla.) 52 P. 738; Jones v. Parker (Wyo.) 273 P. 687; 17 C. J. 795-797; 17 C. J. 914; Hardware Co. v. Walker (Texas) 113 S.W. 163; Wilton v. City of Flint (Mich.) 87 N.W. 86; Feller v. McKillip (Mo.) 81 S.W. 641; Carrera v. Dibrell (Tex.) 95 S.W. 628. The court erred in giving instructions excepted to by plaintiff. Sec. 89-4014, 89-2605, R. S. 1931; Hugh v. Calloway, 10 Oh. State 488; Henaker v. Vessey, 57 Neb. 413; 65 C. J. 121; Rogers v. Benford (Okla.) 201 P. 646; Douglass v. Kraft (Cal.) 43 L. R. A. 768; Lomax v. Walk (Ore.) 54 P. 199; Brook v. Bayless (Okla.) 52 P. 738; 64 C. J. 671-686; Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Bells (Wyo.) 280 P. 98; Jones v. Parker (Wyo.) 273 P. 687. The court erred in receiving and excluding evidence over objection of the plaintiff. 17 C. J. 777; Eten v. Luyster, 60 N.Y. 252; 22 C. J. 573, 579, 581, 582; Jensen v. Ins. Co. (Nebr.) 116 N.W. 286 Western Home Ins. Co. v. Richardson (Nebr.) 58 N.W. 597; Bolte v. Association (S. D.) 121 N.W. 773; Enos v. Ins. Co. (S. D.) 121 N.W. 773; Furlong v. Ins. Co., 113 N.W. 1084; 65 C. J. 42, 110; Shikany v. Transportation Co., 48 Wyo. 190; Slane v. Curtis, 41 Wyo. 402; Cronberg Bros. v. Johnson, 29 Wyo. 11. The appellant complains of errors of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by plaintiff affecting his substantial rights. 64 C. J. 445, 461-470; Secs. 89-2605, 4014; Jones v. Chicago, 23 Wyo. 148; 65 C. J. 121; Hall Oil Co. v. Barquin, 33 Wyo. 292; 70 C. J. 681; Harris v. Schoonmaker, 50 Wyo. 119; Galicich v. Ore. R. R. Co. (Wyo.) 87 P.2d 27; Boswell v. Bank, 16 Wyo. 161; Martel v. Hall Oil Co., 36 Wyo. 166; Moore v. Moore (Kan.) 150 P. 230.

For the respondents, Minnie Molinar Marcante and J. A. Christmas, Executors of the Estate of Angelo Molinar, Deceased, there was a brief and oral argument by W. A. Muir of Rock Springs.

This is an action in replevin commenced within three days after respondent Ernest Molinar requested and received possession of the mortgaged property. The verdicts of the jury are sustained by substantial evidence. The court's instructions on the measure of damages were not prejudicial to plaintiff. Sec. 89-4014, R. S.; Hunt v. Thompson, 19 Wyo. 523; Cunningham v. Stoner (Ida. ) 79 P. 228; Just v. Poeter, 64 Mich. 565; Becker v. Staab, 114 Iowa 319; Schrandt v. Young, 62 Neb. 254; Boswell v. Bank, 16 Wyo. 161; Quinlan v. Jones, 27 Wyo. 410; Sec. 89-4014, R. S. 1931; Jones v. Parker, 39 Wyo. 423; Allen v. Fox, 51 N.Y. 562; Woodring v. Bank (S. D.) 227 N.W. 438; 65 C. J. 131, 136-8, 141, 143; 11 C. J. 597; Finance Corporation v. Smith, 42 Wyo. 380; 54 C. J. 615; Burton v. Randall (Kan.) 46 P. 326; National Bank of Commerce v. Jackson (Okla.) 170 P. 474; Tootle v. Kent (Okla.) 73 P. 310; Millspaugh Laundry v. First Nat. Bank of Sioux City, 94 N.E. 262. The verdicts are sustained by substantial evidence and under the rule should not be disturbed when there is a reasonable conflict in the evidence. Willis v. Willis, 48 Wyo. 403; 4 C. J. 857; Utilities Co. v. Brouilette, 51 Wyo. 132; 4 C. J. 975; Quealy Land Co. v. George, 51 Wyo. 94; Davis-Robinson v. Patee, 49 Wyo. 470; Kinney v. Barnhisel, 53 Wyo. 58; Lambert v. Place, 53 Wyo. 241; Jovich v. Crotian Society, 53 Wyo. 504; Redwine v. Supply Co. (Wyo.) 91 P.2d 49; Bank v. Barrett (Wyo.) 93 P.2d 510; Foley v. Hassey (Wyo.) 95 P. 285; Snowball v. Maney Bros. & Co. (Wyo.) 270 P. 167; Nelson v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. (S. C.) Negligence and Compensation Cases Annotated (N. S.) Vol. 6, p. 35; 64 C. J. 308-309. The mortgagee acted in good faith in taking possession of the property under the insecurity clause of the mortgage. Wettlin v. Jones, 32 Wyo. 446; 11 C. J. 555; Sills v. Hawes, 59 P. 422; Woods v. Gaar, Scott & Co. (Mich.) 53 N.W. 14; Hogan, et al. v. Akin (Ill.) 55 N.E. 137; James v. Speer (Mont.) 220 P. 525; Robinson v. Gray (Iowa) 23 L. R. A. 780; Lomax v. Walk (Ore.) 54 P. 199; 11 C. J. 588; Wynn v. Vessey (Wash.) 221 P. 295; Francisco v. Ryan (Ohio) 43 N.E. 1045; Fleming v. Thorp (Kan.) 96 P. 470.

For the respondent, Ernest Molinar, there was a brief by J. R. Armstrong of Rawlins.

The credibility of witnesses was for the jury; their verdict based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed especially where supported by substantial evidence. Northwest States Utilities Co. v. Brouilette, 51 Wyo. 132; Peterson v. Johnson, 46 Wyo. 473; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Monseau, 1 Wyo. 17; Brennan v. Heenan, 1 Wyo. 121; Wyoming National Bank v. Dayton, 1 Wyo. 336; Murphy v. Livestock Co., 26 Wyo. 455; Henderson v. Coleman, 19 Wyo. 183; Montgomery v. Empey, 36 Wyo. 37. The evidence shows that Ernest Molinar had grounds for deeming the security insufficient and was justified in taking possession of the goods. 14 C. J. S. 788; Francisco v. Ryan (Ohio) 43 N.E. 1045; Johnson v. Thayer (Ohio) 4 N.E.2d 173; Thorp v. Fleming (Kans.) 96 P. 470; Hill v. Merriman (Wis.) 40 N.W. 399. The mortgagee was entitled to take possession in case of default in any of the provisions of the mortgage, which contained permission to sell in the course of business and apply the proceeds on the indebtedness or in replacing stock. This was lawful. Sec. 71-114, R. S. 1931; Reynolds v. Morton, 23 Wyo. 528; Hawkes v. First National Bank (Colo.) 224 P. 224; Crowley v. Langdon (Mich.) 86 N.W. 391. Plaintiff failed to plead special damages or to file a replevin bond, thereby electing to treat the property as belonging to defendants. Hunt v. Thompson, 19 Wyo. 523, 120 P. 181. It is unnecessary to obtain consent of mortgagor after default occurs. 14 C. J. S. 794; Machine Company v. Barney (Okla.) 154 P. 674; Radford Company v. Jamison (Texas) 282 S.W. 278. The burden was upon plaintiff to show bad faith. Geiser Mfg. Co. v. Krogman (Iowa) 82 N.W. 938. There was a voluntary delivery of the goods by mortgagor. Plaintiff in replevin was required to show his right to possession at the commencement of the action. Jones v. Parker, 39 Wyo. 423; Thomas v. Mann, 22 Wyo. 99; Wiltrout v. Sprague, 40 Wyo. 215. There was no evidence of unlawful detention and replevin cannot be maintained. 54 C. J. 443; Boswell v. Bank, 16 Wyo. 161. A verdict will not be held invalid for mere informality. 64 C. J. 1065. A verdict, however informal, is good, if the court can understand it. Garrett v. State (Ind.) 49 N.E. 33; Gregory v. Morris, 1 Wyo. 213; Bank v. Rowley (Iowa) 69 N.W. 1017. No objection was made to the verdict at the time, so there was a waiver. Innes v. Ray, 28 Wyo. 274; Roach v. Hulings, 16 Peters 319. The court did not err in refusing plaintiff's requested instructions. Damages claimed for the destruction of business must be specially pleaded. Armogost v. Rising (Nebr.) 75 N.W. 534; Hammond v. Thompson (Mont.) 173 P. 229; Henderson v. Coleman, 19 Wyo. 183; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Nash, 20 Wyo. 65. Cautionary instructions are within the discretion of the court. 64 C. J. 590; Hoge v. George, 27 Wyo. 423. The instructions given by the trial court fairly covered the legal principles involved in the suit. Interest is not recoverable on unliquidated damages. Rawlins v. Murphy, 19 Wyo. 238. The duty of a plaintiff claiming damages, to...