Hull v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 10 March 1897
• Citation: 39 S.W. 446
• Parties: HULL v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.[1]
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

39 S.W. 446

HULL v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.^[1]

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

March 10, 1897

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; L. B. Valliant, Judge.

Action by Leon L. Hull against the city of St. Louis, Mo., as trustee, to recover $3,250 for services rendered. From a judgment on a verdict for $1,188, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Lubke & Muench, for appellant.

W. C Marshall and B. Schnurmacher, for respondent.

OPINION

BURGESS, J.

This is an action for compensation for personal services rendered by plaintiff for defendant in and about the appraisement of certain property which it holds in trust as a charitable fund to furnish relief to all poor emigrants and travelers coming to St. Louis bona fide to settle in the West. The amount sued for was $3,250. The amount for which plaintiff recovered a verdict before a jury was $1,188. He then filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he appealed.

In 1851, one Bryan Mullanphy died testate. By his will he devised one-third of all his property, real, personal, and mixed, to the city of St. Louis in trust, to be and constitute a fund to furnish relief to all poor emigrants and travelers coming to St. Louis bona fide to settle in the West. The city accepted the trust, and by ordinance created a board called the "Board of Commissioners of the Mullanphy Emigrant Relief Fund," to carry out the purposes of the testator. The board, desiring to have the trust property appraised, on September 13, 1893, employed the plaintiff, Charles Green, and T. J. Quinn, as such appraisers. No agreement was made as to the compensation that they were to receive for their services. The property to be examined and appraised was in the city of St. Louis. There was evidence tending to show that the appraisers were informed that they might hire carriages to take them to the property, a clerk to assist them in their work, and a surveyor to locate the property. For these services they presented a bill for carriage hire amounting to $200, a surveyor’s bill of $800, and a bill for services alleged to have been rendered by the clerk of the appraisers of $2,400. This bill the board declined to pay, upon the ground that it was contracted without authority from the board, and declined to pay the amount demanded by the appraisers upon the ground that the same was excessive. Plaintiff was, at the time of his appointment, a real-estate agent in said city. The time consumed in making the appraisement, report, etc., was 228 days. The plaintiff and 11 other witnesses, including the appraisers Quinn and Green, testified in his behalf, and estimated the value of the services rendered by plaintiff at $3,250, while five witnesses who testified in behalf of defendant estimated them at from $1,000 to $1,200. At the instance of the plaintiff the court gave to the jury the following instruction: "First. The court instructs the jury to find for the plaintiff, Leon L. Hull, and to assess his compensation at such sum as from the evidence before them the jury may believe his services to have been reasonably worth." The court refused to give to the jury the following instruction: "Second. In estimating the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services, the jury may take into consideration the evidence showing plaintiff’s experience as a real-estate agent in the city of St. Louis at the time when the services were rendered, the compensation at the time usually paid to and received by competent real-estate agents of said city for like services the character and amount of property examined and appraised by plaintiff, the services actually performed in making such examination and appraisement, and time consumed therein, and also the reasonable opinions of expert witnesses who have testified upon this trial, as well as all other facts and circumstances shown in the evidence bearing on plaintiff’s services, and the reasonable value thereof when rendered." The court, of its own motion, gave to the jury the following instruction: "Third. In estimating the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services, the jury may take into consideration the evidence showing plaintiff’s experience as a real-estate agent of the city of St. Louis at the time when the services were rendered, the character and amount of property examined and appraised by plaintiff, the services actually performed in making such examination and appraisement, and time consumed therein, and also the reasonable opinions of expert witnesses who have...