Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Lingle Refrigeration Co.
Decision Date | 02 October 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 23349,23349 |
Citation | 350 S.W.2d 128 |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL SALES, INC., a California corporation, Respondent, v. LINGLE REFRIGERATION COMPANY, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Appellant. |
Robert F. Middleton, Russell, Brown & Middleton, Nevada, for appellant.
Don Kennedy, Nevada, for respondent.
At defendant corporation's request, plaintiff corporation manufactured three dies for forming aluminum extrusions and extruded a quantity of aluminum pieces for defendant's use in manufacturing refrigerator doors. The extrusions were delivered to and accepted by defendant--the dies were retained by plaintiff. Plaintiff sues to recover from defendant an alleged unpaid balance of $410 on the price of the order. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for $410 and interest in favor of plaintiff.
The petition pleads alternative grounds for recovery, i. e., either on (1) an express contract, or (2) an implied contract arising from defendant's order for the dies and extrusions and plaintiff's compliance therewith. The sum of $410 (and interest) is claimed by plaintiff in either event.
There is little factual dispute except as to whether plaintiff or defendant should have possession of the dies. Defendant's refusal to pay the demanded price balance is based on its claim to ownership of and right to possess the dies, which plaintiff denies.
The transaction was initiated at defendant's business office and grew out of negotiations between Mr. John T. Pertile, an engineer representing plaintiff corporation, and Mr. C. M. Lingle, defendant's president. Mr. Pertile proposed to furnish the dies and extrusions. After discussion and the preparation of sketched plans for forming special dies, Mr. Lingle placed a purchase order, on behalf of defendant, for the three dies and for a quantity of aluminum extrusions, to be formed by each die. The order was typed on defendant's 'Purchase Order' form at the direction of Mr. Lingle, by his secretary, was dictated by Mr. Pertile, was signed by Mr. Lingle and duly forwarded to plaintiff's office.
It was plaintiff's evidence that an acknowledgment was mailed by plaintiff to defendant 'probably within 48 hours', as an acceptance of defendant's order. The acknowledgment itemized the three lots of extrusions substantially as contained in defendant's order and designated each of the three die items as a 'Die Service Charge'. The document contained the statement, printed upon its face: .
The conditions referred to were printed on the reverse side of the form. Condition designated 'G' is as follows:
'Equipment:
.
Defendant made no response to the acknowledgment. Plaintiff manufactured the dies and the aluminum extrusions, delivered the latter to defendant and rendered invoices totaling $1,037.51, representing a charge of $410 for the 'die service' items and $627.51 for the delivered extrusions. Defendant paid for the extrusions by its check in the sum of $627.51, but refused to pay the sum of $410 for the die service.
Defendant's first two assignments are directed against the sufficiency of the petition to state a cause of action, and charge the trial court with error in refusing to dismiss the case at the close of plaintiff's evidence for the alleged reasons that plaintiff (1) had failed to plead and prove the necessary factual elements of 'a quantum meruit of action' and (2) had failed to plead and prove an express contract. These contentions have come too late. The complaints against the petition made for the first time in the motion for a new trial, and after the verdict, are unavailing, unless the pleading has completely failed to state a cause of action. Burns et al. v. Vesto Co., Inc., Mo.App., 295 S.W.2d 576; Parker v. Green, Mo.App., 340 S.W.2d 435. Nevertheless, we have examined the petition in the light of the complaints and find that they are groundless. The petition pleads the necessary factual elements of an express contract by averments of an agreement between plaintiff and defendant for the manufacture of the dies and extrusions, plaintiff's performance, and defendant's failure to pay the consideration due plaintiff. The petition pleads an action in quantum meruit by alleging the manufacture of the dies and extrusions by plaintiff at defendant's request, the reasonable value of those items, and defendant's refusal to pay a balance of account. With reference to the trial court's refusal to dismiss the case at the close of plaintiff's evidence--any error resulting from that action was waived by defendant when it subsequently introduced evidence on the merits of the case. Wilson v. White, Mo.App., 272 S.W.2d 1; Adams v. Kansas City, Mo.App., 266 S.W.2d 771; Ellis v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.App., 203 S.W.2d 475.
Defendant contends that plaintiff's petition improperly pleaded two inconsistent theories of recovery--quantum meruit and express contract, and that the trial court should have required plaintiff to elect of those theories for submission to the jury instead of permitting the case to be submitted on the both issues. In our opinion these contentions are contrary to applicable rules of procedure and controlling Missouri decisions which have determined the precise questions involved.
Civil Rule 55.12 (Sec. 509.110 V.A.M.S.) V.A.M.R. permits a party to set forth two or more statements of a claim (or defense), alternatively or hypothetically, either in one count (or defense), or in separate counts (or defenses). The effect of this provision is to enable parties, as far as practicable, to submit all their controversies in a single action and avoid a multiplicity of suits. Thus, it is possible for a plaintiff to state his case in a double aspect when he does not know upon what precise theory his evidence may entitle him to recover. Such a party, believing he has two forms of action to remedy a single wrong, may plead both when they are not inconsistent in the sense that the choice of one necessarily waives the other, and recover as he may be entitled under the evidence. See 1 Am.Jur., Actions, Sec. 77, Sec. 83; Davis v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co., 338 Mo. 1248, 94 S.W.2d 370; Kansas City v. Rathford, 353 Mo. 1130, 186 S.W.2d 570; Mahan v. Baile et al., 358 Mo. 625, 216 S.W.2d 92; Carsel v. Mitchell, Mo.App., 261 S.W.2d 249.
In The Globe Light & Heat Co. v. Doud, 47 Mo.App. 439, this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Campbell
... ... Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Linger ... ...
-
American Drilling Service Co. v. City of Springfield
... ... See Empiregas, Inc. of Noel v. Hoover Ball & Bearing Co., 507 S.W.2d ... express contract may be jointly pleaded, Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Lingle Refrig ... ...
-
Willits v. Peabody Coal Co.
...to submit all their controversies in a single action and avoid a multiplicity of suits.” Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Lingle Refrigeration Co., 350 S.W.2d 128, 131 (Mo.App.1961)15 (emphasis added). Thus, in that vein, Appellants could have argued their “judicial takings” and Due P......
-
Wallace v. Bounds
... ... Motors, Mo.App., 240 S.W.2d 732, 735, and Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Lingle Refrig ... ...