John Deere Co. of St. Louis v. Davis
| Decision Date | 16 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 7816,7816 |
| Parties | JOHN DEERE COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O. L. DAVIS, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Powell & Jones, Dexter, for plaintiff-appellant.
Henson & Henson, Poplar Bluff, for defendant-respondent.
The petition of plaintiff, John Deere Company of St. Louis, a corporation, was in two counts. In the first count, plaintiff sought judgment on a negotiable promissory note (hereinafter referred to as the note) dated January 1, 1957, in the principal sum of $561.55 payable (in two installments, to-wit, $269.25 on November 1, 1957, and $292.30 on November 1, 1958, with interest from maturity at seven per cent per annum) to the order of Missco Implement Company, a corporation, and by Missco indorsed without recourse and sold to plaintiff 'for the full amount of the note' prior to maturity of the first installment. In the second count, plaintiff sought to replevy, under a chattel mortgage of even date securing the note, certain used farm machinery (i. e., a tractor, a 2-row cultivator, a 2-row planter with attachments, a plow, and a spring tooth harrow) sold by Missco to defendant for $861.55, of which defendant paid $300 in cash with the balance of $561.55 evidenced by the note. Defendant's answer was an unverified general denial. The jury returned a ten-juror verdict for plaintiff on the second count, finding (upon a verdict-directing instruction embodying all of the elements essential to a verdict for plaintiff on the first count also) that plaintiff was entitled to possession of the above-described farm machinery; but, on the first count, the same ten jurors under the same verdict-directing instruction inexplicably found for defendant, a verdict inconsistent with and contradictory of the verdict for plaintiff on the second count. Dugan v. Trout, Mo.App., 271 S.W.2d 593, 600(14). Apparently content with this anomalous result, defendant made no after-trial complaint concerning the judgment for plaintiff on the second count for possession of the mortgaged machinery. But plaintiff, who had moved unsuccessfully for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, filed its after-trial motion for judgment on the first count and, in the alternative, for a new trial [V.A.M.S. 510.290]; and, following the overruling of that after-trial motion, plaintiff has perfected this appeal, still insisting that it was and is entitled to a directed judgment on the note. Indulging a practice neither helpful nor commendable [Mannon v. Frick, 365 Mo. 1203, 1205, 295 S.W.2d 158, 161; State v. Bern, Mo.App., 322 S.W.2d 175, 176], defendant-respondent has filed no brief here.
Upon trial, defendant readily admitted execution and delivery of the note, frankly conceded the consideration therefor, and quickly agreed that no payment had been made thereon. The only semblance of an excuse for non-payment was contained in defendant's offer of proof concerning an alleged conversation with an unidentified 'collector' for plaintiff 'about a year' after execution of the note, and thus after the first of the two installments was past due and unpaid. Following testimony that 'I (defendant) told him (plaintiff's collector) about the only way he would collect for that now is just to take the tractor' (which the collector declined to do), the offer of proof was that, if permitted to do so, defendant also would show an 'agreement * * * that a tire which was ruined on the tractor, punctured, would be replaced, and that payment would be resumed upon the replacement of this tire.' In urging reception of this evidence, defendant's counsel first said that 'we think we are entitled to show why he (defendant) is in default' but later added 'we deny that the payment is in default,' although, as we have noted, the first installment on the note was past due and unpaid at the time of defendant's conversation with plaintiff's collector. The proffered evidence apparently was intended to show an extension of time for payment which, of course, would have been an affirmative defense (if a defense at all), i. e., a defense resting on a fact or facts not necessary to support plaintiff's suit on the note. Garrison v. Campbell '66' Express, Mo.App., 297 S.W.2d 22, 30, and cases there cited in footnote 13. Such evidence was inadmissible under defendant's general denial and the offer of proof properly was refused. V.A.M.S. 509.090; Cahn v. Miller, Mo.App., 106 S.W.2d 495, 497; George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. v. Rembaugh, 21 Mo.App. 390, 393(2). See also South Side Bank of Kansas City v. Ozias, Mo.App., 155 S.W.2d 519, 527(19).
In these circumstances, our review would become 'a short horse * * * soone currid' [Heywood's Proverbes, Chap. X] and we would declare immediately plaintiff's right to a directed verdict, if this were a suit by Missco Implement Company, the payee in the note. Latta v. Robinson Erection Co., 363 Mo. 47, 248 S.W.2d 569, 577-578(4); Arthur Fels Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Pollock, 347 Mo. 853, 149 S.W.2d 356, 360(7); Rubinic v. Sabados, Mo.App., 264 S.W.2d 935, 936(1); Allison v. Tucker, Mo.App., 170 S.W.2d 963, 964(4). But, instant plaintiff sued as an indorsee, asserting that it was a holder in due course [V.A.M.S. 401.052], and defendant's general denial put in issue plaintiff's title and the genuineness of the indorsement. Pearce v. Hindman, Mo.App., 217 S.W.2d 592, 594; Nance v. Hayward, 183 Mo.App. 217, 170 S.W. 429(1); Worrell v. Roberts, 58 Mo.App. 197, 198. So, to make a submissible case, plaintiff was required to present substantial evidence, aliunde the note, tending to establish those essential elements. Fitzgibbon Discount Corp. v. Windisch, Mo.App., 271 S.W.2d 226, 229(3); Neidert v. Terrill, Mo.App., 215 S.W.2d 745, 750(3); Hall v. Eime, Mo.App., 81 S.W.2d 347, 348(1); Metropolitan Discount Co. v. Indermuehle, 217 Mo.App. 326, 272 S.W. 1037, 1038(4); Bank of Bernie v. Blades, 215 Mo.App. 459, 247 S.W. 806, 807(1). And, although plaintiff adduced such evidence and it remained uncontradicted, the case still would have been for determination by the jury [State ex rel. Strohfeld v. Cox, 325 Mo. 901, 30 S.W.2d 462, 465(6); State ex rel. and to use of Hickory County v. Davis, Mo., 302 S.W.2d 892, 896(3)], if there had been any live issue as to plaintiff's title or the genuiness of the indorsement. Furth v. Cafferata, Mo.App., 240 S.W. 476, 477.
However, we think it crystal clear from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandivort v. Dodds Truck Line, Inc.
...Mo.App., 347 S.W.2d 391, 395(10)), and an attorney's fee of an additional 10% as provided in each note. John Deere Co. of St. Louis V. Davis, Mo.App., 335 S.W.2d 686, 689(5); Wright v. Dodson, Mo.App., 147 S.W.2d 180, 182(4, Our mathematical calculations have satisfied us that the amount of......
-
M. F. A. Co-op. Ass'n of Mansfield v. Murray, 8119
...indulging a practice neither helpful nor commendable. Mannon v. Frick, 365 Mo. 1203, 1205, 295 S.W.2d 158, 161; John Deere Co. of St. Louis v. Davis, Mo.App., 335 S.W.2d 686, 688. Before ruling the points presented by plaintiff-appellant, certain preliminary observations may be appropriate ......
-
UAW-CIO Local No. 31 Credit Union v. Royal Ins. Co., Ltd.
...status as a holder in due course, and it was not necessary that such issue be submitted to the jury. John Deere Company of St. Louis v. Davis, 335 S.W.2d 686, 689 (Mo.App.1960). It is provided in § 400.3-307(2) that "When signatures are admitted or established, production of the instrument ......
-
Securities Inv. Co. v. Hicks
...ownership of the note (cf. Hall v. Eime, Mo.App., 81 S.W.2d 347, 348), and genuineness of the endorsement. John Deere Co. of St. Louis v. Davis, Mo.App., 335 S.W.2d 686, 688(2); Nance v. Hayward, 183 Mo.App. 217, 219, 170 S.W. 429(1); Worrell v. Roberts, 58 Mo.App. 197, 198. With respect to......