Herron v. Smith
| Citation | 285 S.W. 544 |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 19128.,19128. |
| Parties | HERRON v. SMITH. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Eby & Hulse, of Hannibal, Ras Pearson, of Louisiana, Mo., and D. L. Alford, of Perry, for plaintiff in error.
Drake Watson, of New London, and Hostetter & Haley, of Bowling Green, for defendant in error.
This suit originated in the circuit court of Rolls county. It was taken on a change of venue to Pike county, where a trial was had. Plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment in the sum of $1,000, and the case is brought to this court by a writ of error.
William II. Herron, defendant in error, whom we will hereafter designate as plaintiff, bought a farm from one McAdams, in the year 1920. At the time of the purchase he acted through one Hulse. The farm he purchased from McAdams consisted of 318 acres situated in Rails county. At the time of the purchase there was a deed of trust thereon for $8,000, held by a farm loan company, for which the plaintiff in error, whom we will hereinafter designate as defendant, was agent. In addition to the above-mentioned deed of trust, plaintiff, at the time of the purchase, gave Hulse a second mortgage on the farm for $2,500. He purchased from McAdams $1,000 worth of feed which was on the place, and gave McAdams a note for $1,000. In the early part of the year 1921, when the yearly interest on the $8,000 mortgage became due, plaintiff was unable to pay the same. He found that farm prices had gone down, and he was unable to meet his interest payments. Mr. Hulse, who held the second mortgage for $2,500, offered to accept $1,500 in settlement of the same. The loan company was threatening foreclosure proceedings on his farm. The outlook was very gloomy for plaintiff, who was a man 68 years old, living on this farm together with his son. Seeing the gloomy outlook, he made up his mind that he could not afford to put any more money into this farm, and began to try to get some one to assume the indebtedness thereon, and take it off his hands. He made this proposition to his banker, as well as to Hulse; that is, he informed them that, if they would pay the $8,000 mortgage, settle the $2,500 second mortgage held by Hulse, and pay the McAdams note for $1,000, they could have the farm. Neither his banker nor Hulse would accept the proposition. He then went to the defendant, Smith, who was county judge of Rails county. Plaintiff had known Smith since he (Smith) was a small boy. He made this same proposition to Smith, who represented the loan company which held the mortgage against his place. It appears that defendant informed him that he could not handle the proposition, but later decided to do so. Smith suggested to plaintiff that he go and look at a farm which his brother had, consisting of 105 acres, and that, if he would take his brother's farm, and assume the mortgage of $1,500 against it, he could handle his farm. Plaintiff looked at the brother's farm, and said he could not handle it.
At this point in the story the testimony of plaintiff and defendant differs. Plaintiff's version of the affair is that he trusted Smith implicitly, and that Smith agreed to handle his farm, and induced him and his wife to make a deed, deeding the farm to Smith's brother, thinking that the brother was to assume all the indebtednes against the farm, and pay the $1,000 McAdams note. Smith's testimony is that he told plaintiff he could not accept the proposition in that way; that he would be unable to handle his farm if he was to assume the payment of the $1,000 McAdams note, but that, if defendant would put in certain hay and corn; he could take the farm off his hands, and pay all indebtedness with the exception of the $1,000 note. It appears that defendant sold his brother's farm to one Manley, but, instead of receiving $3,000 for it, the amount he at first thought he could get, he was able to get only $2,000 from Manley for his brother's farm. The contention of defendant is, of course, that he was merely trying to do the plaintiff, who was an old friend, a favor by taking the farm off his hands upon the best terms he could get, while plaintiff's contention is that defendant was acting as his agent in the matter, and could and must account to him for the profits made, if any. It appears that after this deal was made some neighbors began to talk a little about defendant's having made considerable profit out of this transaction. Plaintiff testified that not long after the sale was consummated he had a conversation with defendant, during which defendant said to him :
The defendant's version of this conversation is that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leimkuehler v. Wessendorf
...in such case would be the amount actually received by the plaintiffs less whatever commission the plaintiffs had received. Herron v. Smith, 285 S.W. 544; Busse White, 302 Mo. 672; Degonia v. Railroad, 224 Mo. 564. (c) Because said instruction authorizes a recovery against all of the defenda......
-
Bohannon v. Illinois Bankers' Life Ass'n
...who delivered the policy, or that the agent of the company delivered the policy, all necessary findings on the theory of waiver. Herron v. Smith, 285 S.W. 544; v. United Rep. Co., 271 S.W. 773, 308 Mo. 142. (3) The court erred in refusing defendant's requested instruction No. 3 and in givin......
-
Bohannon v. Ill. Bankers Life Assn.
...who delivered the policy, or that the agent of the company delivered the policy, all necessary findings on the theory of waiver. Herron v. Smith, 285 S.W. 544; Heigold v. United Rep. Co., 271 S.W. 773, 308 Mo. 142. (3) The court erred in refusing defendant's requested instruction No. 3 and ......
-
Leimkuehler v. Wessendorf
...in such case would be the amount actually received by the plaintiffs less whatever commission the plaintiffs had received. Herron v. Smith, 285 S.W. 544; Busse v. White, 302 Mo. 672; Degonia v. Railroad, 224 Mo. 564. (c) Because said instruction authorizes a recovery against all of the defe......