Hewitt v. Steele

Citation24 S.W. 440,118 Mo. 463
PartiesHEWITT v. STEELE.
Decision Date07 December 1893
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; E. M. Hughes, Judge.

Action by Anna M. Hewitt against John J. Steele for damages for negligently selling, at less than its value, stock which had been intrusted to him to manage and as collateral security. There was judgment for plaintiff, but a new trial was granted, and, on plaintiff's refusal to appear, a judgment of nonsuit was entered. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. Robertson, (H. S. Priest, of counsel,) for appellant. Elijah Robinson, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

In 1881 a corporation was organized in the city of St. Louis by the name of the Mound Street Warehouse Company, with a capital stock of $50,000, divided into 500 shares of $100 each, and $45,000 of it was paid up. One hundred and seventy-five shares were issued to Mr. Hewitt, the husband of this plaintiff, and 25 shares were issued to the defendant. The other shares were owned by other parties in St. Louis and in the state of Indiana. All of the capital stock was spent in purchasing real estate in St. Louis in the neighborhood of where was afterwards built the Merchants bridge, and in putting a building thereon, and for machinery with which to carry on the business of an elevator and warehouse. The business was continued along until November, 1882, when the plaintiff's husband died. He bequeathed all his interest in this corporation to her. The defendant had during this time, and for a long time prior thereto, lived in Mexico, and the plaintiff knew him in her childhood, and the families were connected by marriage. She had introduced her husband to Mr. Steele, and they both had implicit confidence in his integrity and business capacity; so much so that the husband, shortly before his death, invited Mr. Steele to his house, and asked him to look after his wife's interest in the corporation after his death. At the time of Mr. Hewitt's death this stock was hypothecated at a bank in St. Louis for a debt of something like $4,000, and it continued so until the defendant took up the debt at the bank for plaintiff, and added something to it, and took plaintiff's note for $6,000, and took all of her shares of stock in said corporation as collateral, and then undertook, as her trustee, to control and manage it for her. The defendant undertook this management on the 24th day of August, 1886. This property, up to this time, had been paying no dividend; and the prospects were not flattering that it would do so soon. In November, 1882, plaintiff's husband died, and S. C. Bunn was appointed administrator of his estate. The estate was several thousand dollars in debt, and the stock in the warehouse seems to have been the only assets. Five thousand dollars of this stock was held by a bank in St. Louis to secure the payment of a note of $2,700. Plaintiff applied to the payment of this note $2,000 insurance money, and borrowed from defendant money to pay the other $700. Upon payment of this $2,700 note the $5,000 in stock was turned over to the administrator. The administration was continued until about 1885 or 1886, when an arrangement was entered into whereby plaintiff assumed the payment of the indebtedness, and the entire $17,500 stock was turned over to her under the provisions of the will. The indebtedness of the estate then amounted to $4,500 to $4,600, and to procure money with which to pay this the plaintiff borrowed $4,500 from a bank in St. Louis, and deposited the 175 shares of stock as collateral security. The company lost money continually from the time it was organized. Both the ground and the building seemed to have cost the company more than they were actually worth, and upon the completion of the building the company was compelled to borrow $5,000 to finish paying for it. In the summer of 1885, defendant sold his stock, for which he had paid par, for 60 cents on the dollar, and informed plaintiff of the fact at the time he sold. In August, 1886, plaintiff, on her return to St. Louis after an absence of some weeks, received a note from the bank informing her that her note for $4,500 must be paid at once, or the bank would sell the stock which it held as collateral. She immediately wrote to defendant, appealing to him to assist her in preventing the sacrifice of the stock. She told him that unless he came to her rescue at that time he would lose what she then owed him, which amounted to $1,200 or $1,400. Defendant, who was a man of limited means, borrowed from the bank at Mexico $4,500, and to secure the same executed a deed of trust on all the real estate he owned, including his homestead. With this $4,500 he took up the note in bank. Plaintiff then executed to him her note for something over $5,700, being the amount of her indebtedness to him, and deposited with him as collateral to secure the payment of said note the 175 shares of stock in the warehouse company. It was agreed that he should manage the stock in such manner as to him might seem best, and, in order that he might sell the same, it was duly assigned to him. The company continued to lose money. Defendant had borrowed from a bank at Mexico the $4,500 for only 90 days, and when he took up the stock in St. Louis for the plaintiff he informed her of the fact, and told her that she must make some arrangement to pay him on or before the expiration of the 90 days. This she failed to do, but at the expiration of the 90 days defendant succeeded in getting a renewal of his note in the bank at Mexico. He informed plaintiff of that fact, and requested her to get some other friend more able to do so, to carry the debt for her, or to make some other disposition to relieve him. She repeatedly, both before and after the expiration of the first 90 days, told him to sell the stock on the best terms he could, she saying that all she desired was that defendant should not lose any money in the transaction. In the fall or winter of 1886 the plaintiff went to Nevada for the purpose of teaching school. After going to Nevada, she wrote to defendant, requesting him to hold the stock until after the 1st of January, if possible; but if he could not hold it to sell it on the best terms he could get. Defendant not only held the stock' until after the 1st of January, 1887, but until the 16th of March, 1887, when he sold it for $6,100. On the 12th day of March, 1887, he received from the bank notice that his note would mature on the 22d, and that it must be paid. After taking the stock into his possession, defendant went to the city of St. Louis for the purpose of making some disposition of it. He called on quite a number of persons, and endeavored to sell the stock. He found no one outside of those interested in the corporation who would make an offer. In the mean time, Mr. Mariner, one of the stockholders and officers of the corporation, had succeeded in getting possession of a majority of the stock; and defendant finally sold the stock in controversy to him for $6,100. During the summer of 1887 the plaintiff was informed that the stock had been sold at, as she alleged, a great sacrifice, and began this suit.

The petition, leaving out the formal parts, contains the following allegations: "Defendant did accept said stock and interest of said pla...

To continue reading

Request your trial
149 cases
  • Hays v. Hogan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 22 Diciembre 1917
    ...... 200 S.W. 288 . in the bill of exceptions it cannot be preserved by the record proper. Hewitt v. Steele, 118 Mo. 463, 24 S. W. 440; Taylor v. Scherpe et al., 47 Mo. App. 257; Pennowfsky v. Coerver, 205 Mo. 135, 103 S. W. 542. Notwithstanding ......
  • State ex rel. Bluford v. Canada, 37449.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 8 Julio 1941
    ...Smith v. Pettis County, 136 S.W. (2d) 282; Missouri-Kansas & Eastern Ry. Co. v. Holschlag, 144 Mo. 253, 45 S.W. 1101; Hewitt v. Steele, 118 Mo. 463, 24 S.W. 440; Smith v. Holdoway Const. Co., 344 Mo. 862, 129 S.W. (2d) 894; Easton Food Center v. Beatrice Creamery Co., 119 S.W. (2d) 987. Man......
  • Pulitzer v. Chapman, 30027.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 Julio 1935
    ......279; Loftus v. Met. St. Rys. Co., 220 Mo. 470: Millar v. Madison Car Co., 130 Mo. 517: Standard Mill. Co. v. White, 122 Mo. 258; Hewitt v. Steele, 118 Mo. 463. (2) Influence, in order to affect the validity of a will, must (1) be undue, (2) have been exerted, (3) have been of such ......
  • King & Smith v. Kansas City Life Insurance Co., 37426.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Junio 1942
    ......Two years after that a cause came to this court on appeal from an order granting a new trial, Hewitt v. Steele, 118 Mo. 463, 472-4, 24 S.W. 440, 443. The lower court had written an opinion assigning its reasons. On authority of the Iron Mountain ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT