Jones v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

• Decision Date: 05 March 1945
• Docket Number: No. 20510.,20510.
• Parties: CLARENCE L. JONES v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, A CORPORATION.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

186 S.W.2d 879

CLARENCE L. JONES v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, A CORPORATION.

No. 20510.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 5, 1945.

Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County. — Hon. Albert A. Ridge, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Don Emery, Rayburn L. Foster, R.B.F. Hummer, H.H. Booth and Hogsett, Trippe, Depping & Houts for appellant.

(1) The court erred in refusing Instruction, directing a verdict for defendant, requested by defendant at the close of all the evidence. There was no evidence that defendant procured the issuance of the garnishment without probable cause. Indeed probable cause affirmatively appeared. There was no evidence of malice. Henderson v. Cape Trading Co., 316 Mo. 384, 289 S.W. 332, 334; Smith v. Burrus, 106 Mo. 94, 100; Higgins v. Knickmeyer-Fleer Realty & Investment Co., 335 Mo. 1010, 74 S.W. (2d) 805, 812; Madden v. Covington (Mo. App.), 86 S.W. (2d) 190, 192; Flournoy v. Warden, 17 Mo. 435; Gitt v. Watson, 18 Mo. 274, 276; State v. Moore, 61 Mo. 276, 278-9; State v. Kelsoe, 76 Mo. 505, 507; LaRiviere v. LaRiviere, 77 Mo. 512, 514, 517; Long v. McDow, 87 Mo. 197, 202; State v. McGuire, 87 Mo. 642; Geer v. Missouri Lumber & Mining Co., 134 Mo. 85, 95; Hunt v. Searcy, 167 Mo. 158, 167; State v. Court, 225 Mo. 609, 615; State v. Woods, 274 Mo. 610, 617, 204 S.W. 21, 23; Produce Exchange Bank v. North Kansas City Development Co. (Mo. App.), 212 S.W. 898, 899; Huston v. Graves (Mo.), 213 S.W. 77, 78; Brooks v. Roberts, 281 Mo. 551, 559, 220 S.W. 11; Parker v. Wear (Mo.), 230 S.W. 75, 79; In re Hamill's Estate, 315 Mo. 972, 287 S.W. 485, 487; Wilcox v. Gilmore, 320 Mo. 980, 8 S.W. (2d) 961, 963; Kvasnicka v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 350 Mo. 360, 166 S.W. (2d) 503, 505; Christian v. Hanna, 58 Mo. App. 37, 45; Harris v. Q., O. & K.C. Rd., 172 Mo. 261, 269, 272. (2) The instruction erroneously authorized a verdict for plaintiff without requiring the jury to find that defendant acted maliciously in causing the garnishment to issue. Sharpe v. Johnston, 59 Mo. 557, 575; Fugate v. Millar, 109 Mo. 281, 290; Smith v. Burrus, 106 Mo. 94, 100; Henderson v. Cape Trading Co., 316 Mo. 384, 289 S.W. 332, 334; Webb v. Byrd, 203 Mo. App. 589, 219 S.W. 683, 685; McKee v. Wilson (Mo. App.), 277 S.W. 609, 612. (3) (a) Instruction 2 erroneously advised the jury that it was the duty of the defendant to use due diligence to ascertain any facts the jury might find the defendant could by due diligence have ascertained which would have convinced a reasonable and cautious man that plaintiff was not debtor Clarence L. Jones, and erroneously authorized the jury to take into consideration any failure by Phillips to use due diligence and to ascertain such facts, in determining whether the garnishment in question was issued without probable cause and actuated by malice. Christian v. Hanna, 58 Mo. App. 37, 45-47; Kvasnicka v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 350 Mo. 360, 166 S.W. (2d) 503; Flournoy v. Warden, 17 Mo. 435; Gitt v. Watson, 18 Mo. 274, 276; State v. Moore, 61 Mo. 276, 278-9; State v. Kelsoe, 76 Mo. 505, 507; LaRiviere v. LaRiviere, 77 Mo. 512, 514, 517; Long v. McDow, 87 Mo. 197; State v. McGuire, 87 Mo. 642; Hunt v. Searcy, 167 Mo. 158, 167; Geer v. Missouri Lumber & Mining Co., 134 Mo. 85, 95; State v. Court, 225 Mo. 609, 615; State v. Woods, 274 Mo. 610, 617, 204 S.W. 21, 23; Produce Exchange Bank v. North Kansas City Development Co. (Mo. App), 212 S.W. 898, 899; Huston v. Graves (Mo.), 213 S.W. 77, 78; Parker v. Wear (Mo.), 230 S.W. 75, 79; Brooks v. Roberts, 281 Mo. 551, 559, 220 S.W. 11; In re Hamill's Estate, 315 Mo. 972, 287 S.W. 485, 487. (b) Instruction 2 was not supported by the evidence. There was no evidence that Phillips failed to use due diligence, or by such diligence could have discovered facts charging a person of ordinary prudence with knowledge that plaintiff was not the debtor Clarence L. Jones. State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 654, 195 S.W. 722; Carlisle v. Tilghmon (Mo.), 159 S.W. (2d) 663, 665. (c) Instruction 2 was also erroneous in excluding from the consideration of the jury on any possible question of probable cause, the fact that plaintiff bore the identical name of debtor Clarence L. Jones. Wise v. McNichols, 63 Mo. App. 141, 143-4; Dawes v. Starrett, 336 Mo. 897, 82 S.W. (2d) 43, 57; Lloyd v. Alton R.R., 348 Mo. 122, 159 S.W. (2d) 267, 275; Perkins v. K.C. Southern Ry., 329 Mo. 1190, 49 S.W. (2d) 103, 108. (4) The instruction erroneously authorized the assessment of damages for attorney's fees incurred by plaintiff, without limiting the amount to the sum of $15 alleged by the petition, and although plaintiff testified to an amount in excess of $15 and up to $50. Nigh v. C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 220 Mo. App. 766, 276 S.W. 1038, 1040; Leingang v. Geller, Ward & Hasner Hardware Co., 335 Mo. 549, 73 S.W. (2d) 256, 262-263. (5) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction, authorizing the jury to award punitive damages as for willful, malicious and wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights, with malice defined in plaintiff's Instruction 5 as "knowingly and intentionally doing of a wrongful act." There was no evidence that defendant knowingly or intentionally garnisheed the wages of the wrong Jones. Luhmann v. Schaeffer (Mo. App.), 142 S.W. (2d) 1088, 1090; State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 654, 195 S.W. 722; Carlisle v. Tilghmon (Mo.), 159 S.W. (2d) 663, 665. (6) The verdict and judgment were excessive, both as to compensatory damages, and as to punitive damages. Farrell v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. App. 454, 458; Henderson v. Cape Trading Co., 316 Mo. 384, 289 S.W. 332; Hardy v. Lewis Automobile Co. (Mo. App.), 297 S.W. 169, 171; Hunter v. Kansas City Rys., 213 Mo. App. 233, 248 S.W. 998; Randol v. Kline's Inc., 330 Mo. 343, 48 S.W. (2d) 112; Pritchett v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 228 Mo. App. 661, 73 S.W. (2d) 815.

E.E. Thompson, Alfred H. Osborne and Thompson & Osborne for respondent.

(1) Defendant's demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled. (a) Appellant has entirely misconceived the nature of this action. It is one for damages for wrongful garnishment, and not an action for malicious prosecution. Consequently, it may be maintained without a showing of either malice or want of probable cause — those allegations having been made merely to characterize the act complained of and to afford a foundation for punitive damages. 38 C.J.S. 607; Talbott v. Great Western Plaster Co., 151 Mo. App. 538, 132 S.W. 15, 17; McLaughlin v. Davis, 14 Kan. 168; Lukens v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 937, 101 Pac. (2d) 914; Powell v. Schultz, 118 S.W. (2d) 25. (b) To speak of identity of name as prima facie "evidence" of identity of persons is inaccurate and misleading. It is more properly a pure presumption — at best but a weak one — liable to be much shaken by the very slightest proof of facts which produce a doubt of identity and remaining in force only in the entire absence of any evidence casting doubt upon the propriety of indulging it. Stack v. General Baking Company, 283 Mo. 396, 223 S.W. 89, 96; Myles v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co. (Mo. App.), 52 S.W. (2d) 595, l.c. 598 (6); Randol v. Kline's, Inc., 18 S.W. (2d) 500, 506; Beatty v. Puritan Cosmetic Company et al., 58 S.W. (2d) 191; LaChance v. National Pigment & Chemical Company, 104 S.W. (2d) 693; Hanser v. Bieber, 271 Mo. 326, 197 S.W. 68; McKee et al. v. Wilson, 277 S.W. 609; State ex rel. Mann v. Trimble, 232 S.W. 100. (2) Defendant waived its right to complain of the giving of instruction No. 1 by joining in submitting the issues in the same manner as did instruction No. 1. When instruction is read and construed together with instructions covering the same issues given on behalf of defendant, it cannot be held erroneous. Talbott v. Great Western Plaster Co. (Mo. App.), 132 S.W. 15, l.c. 16-17; Powell v. Schultz (Mo. App.), 118 S.W. (2d) 25, l.c. 29 and 30 (1); Fry v. Estes, 52 Mo. App. l.c. 9; State ex rel. Mann v. Trimble (Mo.), 232 S.W. 100, l.c. 103; Cooper v. Scyoc, 79 S.W. 751, 104 Mo. App. 414; Lukens v. First National Bank, 151 Kan. 937, 102 Pac. (2d) 914; State ex rel. Rothenheber v. Allen et al. (Mo.), 270 S.W. 633, l.c. 633 (1); Carp v. Queen Ins. Co. (Mo.), 101 S.W. 78, l.c. 97; Beatty v. Puritan Cosmetic Co. (Mo. App.), 158 S.W. (2d) 191; Mueller v. Schien (Mo.), 176 S.W. (2d) 449, l.c. 453 (7-9); Johnson v. Dawidoff (Mo.), 177 S.W. (2d) 467 (1), l.c. 469 (1). (3) Plaintiff's instruction No. 2 was proper. LaChance v. National Pigment & Chemical Co. (Mo. App.), 104 S.W. (2d) 693, l.c. 698 (6); Foster v. C., B. & Q.R. Co. (Mo.), 14 S.W. (2d) 561; Randol v. Kline's Inc. et al. (Mo.), 18 S.W. (2d) 500, l.c. 506 (14, 15); Kvasnicka v. Montgomery Ward et al. (Mo.), 166 S.W. (2d) 506, l.c. 512 (9); Irons v. American Ry. Express Co. (Mo.), 300 S.W. 283, l.c. 287, 288 (4); Lewis v. Zagata (Mo.), 166 S.W. (2d) 541, l.c. 545 (5-7); Lindsey v. Evans (Mo. App.), 174 S.W. 390, l.c. 99 (18). (4) Instruction No. 4 was not prejudicially erroneous in authorizing the assessment of damages of attorneys' fees without limiting the amount to the sum of fifteen dollars. Defendant did not object to the evidence regarding amount of attorneys' fees incurred by plaintiff, and, therefore, the petition would be considered amended, if necessary. (5) Instruction No. 4 was proper. Defendant submitted the issue of punitive damages in the same manner as instruction No. 4 by its instructions C, F, and H. Therefore, it cannot claim there was insufficient evidence to support the instruction, nor complain of its language. Boyce v. Donnellan (Mo. App.), 168 S.W. (2d) 120, l.c. 126 (9); McCall v. Thompson (Mo.), 155 S.W. (2d) 161, l.c. 168 (12); Hollister v. A.S. Aloe Company (Mo.), 156 S.W. (2d) 606, l.c. 609, 610 (10); Billingsley v. K.C.P.S. Co. (Mo. App.), 181 S.W. (2d) 204, l.c. 208 (6, 7); Gerharter v. Mitchellhill Seed Co. (Mo. App.), 157 S.W. (2d) 577, l.c. 581; Winegar v. C., B. &...