Johnson v. Geneva Publishing Company
| Decision Date | 24 May 1894 |
| Parties | Johnson, Appellant, v. Geneva Publishing Company et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. D. D. Fisher Judge.
Affirmed.
Leverett Bell for appellant.
(1) The appellant, as creditor of the Geneva Publishing Company, is entitled to the relief asked against the city of St Louis. Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565; St. Louis v. Lumber Co., 114 Mo. 87. (2) Under the terms of the contract between the parties, the city of St. Louis can not withhold money earned by the Geneva Publishing Company, to repay itself for the increased expenditure incurred under the Star-Sayings contract. 2 R. S. 2141; Rev. Ord. of 1887, 937. (3) The reletting of the public printing contract to the highest bidder was unlawful. 2 R. S., 2141; Rev. Ord. of 1887, 937. (4) The city of St. Louis has a complete remedy for any damages it may have sustained by the default of the Geneva Publishing Company on its contract by proceeding against the surety on said contract; and it can not by its own act adjudge itself entitled to damages against the publishing company and the amount thereof, and apply the money of the company in the city treasury to the satisfaction of the same.
W. C Marshall for respondent, city of St. Louis.
The judgment of the circuit court in favor of the city of St. Louis was right. Barnes v. McMullins, 78 Mo. 260, 271; Adams' Equity [4 Ed.], marg. p. 270, and cases cited in note 1, p. 578, and cases cited in note 1, p. 581; 8 Am. and Eng. Encyclopedia of Law, p. 1160 and note 4; Ibid. pp. 1189 and 1190 and notes 1, 2, 3 and 4; Healy v. Butler, 66 Wis. 9; Railroad v. Wheeler, 18 Md. 372; Poe v. College, 4 Gill, 499; McPherson v. Railroad, 66 Mo. 103; National Bank v. Staley, 9 Mo.App. 146; Funkhouser v. Eveland, 3 Mo.App. 602; Barbour on Set-Off [1 Ed.], 189; Green v. Darling, 5 Mason, 202.
The city of St. Louis employed its codefendant the Geneva Publishing Company to do the city's printing, Ben Deering being the manager of that company. After doing the printing for a while at a certain figure, its manager informed the city's authorities that it could no longer comply with its printing contract and abandoned the same. At that time the city was owing the publishing company some $ 750. Thereupon the city employed The Star-Sayings Company to do the work for the remainder of the time. Under the new contract thus entered into, the city was compelled to pay much higher prices for work than if the publishing company complied with its contract and completed the work. This difference in price and consequent loss to the city amounted to the sum of $ 1,071.67.
Meanwhile, and before the abandonment of its contract, plaintiff had loaned the publishing company sums of money from time to time, for which its notes were given, aggregating in amount some $ 800. The publishing company was wholly insolvent, and gave plaintiff a power of attorney to recover whatever the defendant company had earned under the abandoned contract. Plaintiff instituted the present proceeding to effect an equitable garnishment against the defendant city, for the amount thus alleged to be due from the city to the publishing company.
The defendant city set up in its answer sufficient of the facts aforesaid; pleaded a general denial, and prayed that the said sum of $ 1,071.67, be deducted from whatever might be owing from the city to the publishing company. Plaintiff replying, denied the allegations of the answer, and stated that a good and solvent bond had been given the city by the publishing company for the faithful performance of the printing contract aforesaid, and that any loss sustained by the city would be made good by means of the solvent bond thus executed to the city; wherefore he prayed judgment against the city for such amount as it was owing to the publishing company. On this state of facts, the lower court entered a judgment in favor of the city as prayed in the answer of the latter.
There is no doubt but that in appropriate circumstances a party plaintiff may, by the process of equitable garnishment without having recovered a judgment at law, seize and sequestrate whatever may be due from the equitable garnishee to the insolvent or nonresident debtor. Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565, and cases cited. But in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyer v. Ruby Trust Mining & Milling Company
...from his fellow stockholders, under the decisions of this court in Guerney v. Moore, 131 Mo. 650, 32 S.W. 1132, and Johnson v. Geneva Co., 122 Mo. 102, 26 S.W. 676. referee found that Henry Dickmann owned 50,700 shares in the pool at the date of the institution of this suit, and that the fo......
-
Brown v. Maguire's Real Estate Agency
... ... was a check, drawn on garnishee by Middleton Theatre Company, ... dated January 3, 1933, payable to the order of Maguire's ... Real ... 135; McPherson v. A. & P. Railroad ... Co., 66 Mo. 103; Johnson v. Geneva Pub. Co., ... 122 Mo. 102, 26 S.W. 676; People's Savings Bank ... ...
-
Thompson v. Stearns
... ... 993; Coleman v. The American Fire Ins. Co., 74 ... Mo.App. 663; Johnson v. Geneva Pub. Co., 122 Mo ... 102; Potter v. The Conqueror Trust Co., ... Company, in which the defendants Stearns and Rath were ... stockholders; that on ... ...
-
The City of St. Louis to Use of Glencoe Lime & Cement Company v. Von Phul
... ... satisfaction of a judgment against the latter. Pendleton ... v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565; Johnson v. Pub. Co., ... 122 Mo. 102; St. Louis v. Lumber Co., 114 Mo. 87; ... Furlong v. Thomssen, 19 ... ...