Hunter v. Pryor

• Decision Date: 04 April 1927
• Docket Number: No. 15939.,15939.
• Citation: 292 S.W. 1062
• Parties: HUNTER v. PRYOR.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

292 S.W. 1062

HUNTER v. PRYOR.

No. 15939.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

April 4, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; L. A. Vories, Judge.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by James H. Hunter, by Mary A. Williams, his guardian, against James C. Pryor. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Sterling P. Reynolds, of St. Joseph, for appellant.

Shultz & Owen, of St. Joseph, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

This Is an action to recover for money lent to the defendant and for work and labor done by plaintiff for defendant. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff has appealed.

The facts show that plaintiff, James H. Hunter, was declared an insane person by the probate court of Buchanan county, Mo., on March 14, 1925, and that Mary A. Williams was duly appointed his guardian and brings this suit in his behalf. It is claimed that prior to the time that he was adjudged insane plaintiff performed services for and lent money to defendant. Plaintiff was not a witness, being incompetent to testify, but his brother, Thomas W. Hunter, testified that about the 1st of August, 1922, he had a conversation with defendant in which defendant said: "We are going to pay him (plaintiff) every cent we owe him; I am going to see that he gets it." The reason defendant gave for not paying plaintiff at that time was that he was afraid that a certain "fellow was going out there trying to steal this money, bunco it from him," defendant stating that he was holding the money for plaintiff. Some time after this the witness talked to defendant, when defendant said that he was settling up his son's, Polk Pryor's, "business." It appears that the son had died shortly before this time. At the time of this latter conversation, defendant again told the witness that he (defendant) was going to pay plaintiff. On cross-examination the witness testified that plaintiff worked for both defendant and Polk Pryor; that Polk Pryor was operating the dairy and running the farm; that in his conversations with defendant, Polk's name was not mentioned in reference to the payment of the money; that plaintiff told the witness that he was working for Polk; that the witness did not know to whom the money was lent by plaintiff, but that plaintiff told him that he lent "a good part of it (the money) to Polk," but that defendant got some of it. On redirect examination the witness stated that Polk told him: "We are in partnership here, but I am running this (dairy) business; I am paying these bills." There is no evidence as to in what business the services of plaintiff were performed.

Mrs. Byous testified that in February, 1924, she heard a conversation between plaintiff

and defendant in which defendant told plaintiff that he would pay him what he owed him, but that defendant needed the money and could not pay at that time; that defendant said that he would give plaintiff the interest on the money, and defendant thereupon gave plaintiff his check in the sum of $25 and told plaintiff that he would pay him in March. On cross-examination the witness was asked if defendant did not say in this conversation that he was going to pay the money his son Polk owed defendant, and the witness answered: "He spoke about this money; didn't particularly say the son owed him; asked for the money; I suppose they had talked about it before." She further testified that Polk's name was not mentioned. On redirect examination the witness was asked what she understood from the conversation had between plaintiff and defendant and if she understood that defendant owed plaintiff, and she answered: "I answered that way because he acknowledged it in a way, giving the check, is all I have to go by." The witness stated that as well as she could remember she heard defendant or "somebody say it (the indebtedness that defendant promised to pay plaintiff) was in the neighborhood of $500 or $600." This was all the testimony as to the amount that it was claimed defendant owed plaintiff. There was no testimony on the part of defendant. However, defendant took the stand in his own behalf, but by reason of the action of the court was unable to have the jury consider his testimony.

Plaintiff offered, and the court gave, an instruction telling the jury that if they found "that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff," their verdict should be in plaintiff's favor, etc. Plaintiff insists that the verdict...