Hooper v. Wineland
Decision Date | 24 July 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 5999.,5999. |
Citation | 131 S.W.2d 232 |
Parties | HOOPER v. WINELAND et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Wilbur J. Owen, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Proceeding to secure the appointment of a receiver and for an accounting by G. L. Hooper against J. D. Wineland and Nora G. Wineland. From a decree adjudging the defendant indebted to the plaintiff and ordering the sale of property jointly owned by the parties, the defendants appeal.
Motion to dismiss appeal overruled and judgment affirmed.
Kelsey Norman and Henry Warten, both of Joplin, for appellants.
McReynolds & Flanigan, of Carthage, for respondent.
This is a suit in equity brought by plaintiff, based upon a lengthy petition, in which the plaintiff alleged that on July 15, 1936, the defendants entered into a certain written lease with one E. A. Edwards as curator of the estates of James Luke, Jr., and David Chappelle Luke, both minors, as lessor of certain real estate described in the petition as well as in the lease attached to the petition. It is not necessary to set out the description here.
The petition alleges that on January 30, 1937, the written lease was modified. A copy of the modified lease was attached.
The petition alleged that shortly prior to February 13, 1937, the defendants, J. D. Wineland and Nora G. Wineland, proposed to the plaintiff that they enter into a joint adventure or copartnership with the plaintiff, in the ownership of the lease above mentioned, the plaintiff to own one half and the defendants to own the other half thereof, and that as such adventurers or copartners they should proceed to complete the construction of a theatre building on the real estate described in the lease and in the petition, and that when completed the copartners should operate a moving picture theatre therein, and that in the joint adventure or copartnership, the plaintiff should be obliged to contribute one half of the cost of construction and operation and the defendants should contribute the other half thereof, and that in case of losses the same should fall upon the parties in the same proportion. It is alleged that on the 13th day of February, 1937, the parties entered into such a written agreement. It is alleged that under that agreement the plaintiff was to pay to the defendants the sum of $4000 in cash and the further sum of $2000 to be evidenced by plaintiff's promissory note payable to defendants and to be due on or before two years from the date thereof. It is alleged that thereafter, on February 16, 1937, the parties entered into a supplemental agreement modifying and altering the terms of the contract dated February 13, 1937, and providing that the plaintiff, G. L. Hooper, should raise at once the sum of $6000 and out of the same should pay to J. D. Wineland the sum of $1000, and the balance of $5000 to be deposited by said Hooper at the Webb City Bank, to be used exclusively for the purpose of erecting a theatre building upon the premises leased in Carthage. The petition alleges that the plaintiff did raise the full amount of the $6000, and out of the same did pay to J. D. Wineland the sum of $1000 and did deposit the $5000 at Webb City Bank to the credit of Mystic Theatres, that being the name agreed upon by the parties for the joint adventure or copartnership, and that the acts of the plaintiff in raising the said sum of $6000 constituted the consideration for the execution of the supplementary agreement of February 16, 1937. In order to show in full the issues in this matter, we quote the remaining portion of the petition as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fenton v. Thompson
... ... 7, 88 S.W.2d 1019; ... Kinealy v. Macklin, 67 Mo. 95; Thurman v ... Smith, 39 S.W.2d 336, 327 Mo. 894; Hooper v ... Wineland, 131 S.W.2d 232; W.A. Ross Const. Co. v ... Chiles, 130 S.W.2d 524, 344 Mo. 1084; Chitwood v ... Jones, 45 S.W.2d 893; ... ...
-
John A. Moore & Co. v. McConkey
...S.W.2d 825 (1932). Shaw v. Hamilton, 346 Mo. 366, 141 S.W.2d 817 (1940). Schebaum v. Mersman, (Mo. Sup.) 191 S.W.2d 671 (1946). Hooper v. Wineland, 131 S.W.2d 232 (Springfield Ct. of App., 1939). Kidd v. Brewer, Mo. 1047, 297 S.W. 960 (1927). Lambert v. Rodier, 194 S.W.2d 934 (Kansas City C......
-
Thompson v. Hodge
...vol. I, Sec. 38, p. 63, et seq.; 30 C.J.S. Equity Sec. 582, p. 975; In re Beauchamp's Estate, Mo.App., 184 S.W.2d 729; Hooper v. Wineland, Mo.App., 131 S.W.2d 232, 240; Boden v. Johnson, 224 Mo.App. 211, 23 S.W.2d 186; State ex rel. Potter v. Riley, 219 Mo. 667, 118 S.W. 647, 654, et seq.; ......
-
Kasten v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
...v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Mo.App., 82 S.W.2d 601; Harmon v. Irwin, Mo.App., 219 S.W. 392; Hooper v. Wineland, Mo.App., 131 S.W.2d 232; Martin v. Bulgin, Mo.App., 111 S.W.2d 963. Appellant's next point is that the court erred in not sustaining appellant's motion for......