Kansas City v. Halvorson
| Decision Date | 06 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 38611.,38611. |
| Citation | 177 S.W.2d 495 |
| Parties | KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, a Municipal Corporation, v. H.H. HALVORSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Emory H. Wright, Judge.
AFFIRMED (subject to remittitur).
Ernest D. Martin for appellant.
(1) The trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the case since no "listing card" had ever been filed in the cause as required by Rule 22 of the rules of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. Rule 22, Circuit Court of Jackson County; Rigdon v. Ferguson, 172 Mo. 49, 72 S.W. 504; Meierhoffor v. Hansell, 294 Mo. 195, 243 S.W. 131; Mackson v. Ins. Co., 115 S.W. (2d) 217; Pearce v. Rogers, 15 S.W. (2d) 874; Thomas v. Baker-Lockwood Mfg., 163 S.W. (2d) 117. (2) The amended petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Childs v. Bank, 17 Mo. 213; Mooney v. Kennett, 19 Mo. 551; Boyce v. Christy, 47 Mo. 70; McHoney v. Ins. Co., 44 Mo. App. 426; Flowers v. Smith, 214 Mo. 98, 112 S.W. 499; Koch v. State Highway Comm., 47 S.W. (2d) 138; Peyton v. Rose, 41 Mo. 257; Allison v. Mo. P. & L. Co., 59 S.W. (2d) 771; Steinberg v. Bank, 324 Mo. 297, 67 S.W. (2d) 63; Doerner v. St. L. Crematory, 80 S.W. (2d) 721; Mallinckrodt v. Nemnich, 169 Mo. 388, 69 S.W. 355; Pier v. Heinrichoffen, 52 Mo. 333; Walrath v. Crary, 222 S.W. 895; Ederlin v. Judge, 36 Mo. 350; King v. City of Rolla, 130 S.W. (2d) 697; Ludwig v. Scott, 334 Mo. 207, 65 S.W. (2d) 1034; Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 370; Baldwin v. Scott County Mill. Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W. (2d) 890; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412; Silverforb v. Bk., of Nashua, 233 Mo. App. 1239, 128 S.W. (2d) 1070; Kramer v. K.C.P. & L. Co., 311 Mo. 383, 279 S.W. 43; Natl. En. & Stamp. Co. v. St. Louis, 328 Mo. 648, 40 S.W. (2d) 593; Darrow v. Briggs, 261 Mo. 244, 169 S.W. 118; Rositzky v. Rositzky, 329 Mo. 662, 46 S.W. (2d) 591; Ruggles v. Washington County, 3 Mo. 496; Chalnda v. St. L. Transit Co., 213 Mo. 244, 112 S.W. 249; State ex rel. v. Burney, 269 Mo. 602, 191 S.W. 981; Seegers v. Marx-Haas Co., 334 Mo. 632, 66 S.W. (2d) 526; Dano v. Sharpe, 152 S.W. (2d) 693; Niederberg v. Golluber, 162 S.W. (2d) 592; Fritschle v. Kettle River Co., 139 S.W. (2d) 948; Diener v. Star Pub. Co., 230 Mo. 613, 132 S.W. 1143; State ex rel. v. Sevier, 92 S.W. (2d) 102; Massey-Harris Har. Co. v. Fed. Res. Bk., 48 S.W. (2d) 158; Norris v. Letchworth, 152 Mo. 421; Remmers v. Remmers, 217 Mo. 541, 117 S.W. 1117; Cleveland v. Laclede Prod. Co., 129 S.W. (2d) 12; Riggs v. City, 126 S.W. (2d) 1144; 21 C.J. 186, secs. 169-70; 22 C.J., pp. 130, 135, sec. 69; 37 C.J. 807. (3) Payments of money made with full knowledge of all the facts, in the absence of fraud or duress, cannot be recovered back. Sparks v. Jasper County, 212 Mo. 218, 112 S.W. 265; Baldwin v. Scott, 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W. (2d) 890; Ferguson v. Butler County, 297 Mo. 20, 247 S.W. 795; Witmer v. Nichols, 320 Mo. 665, 8 S.W. (2d) 63; Irvin v. St. Louis County, 33 Mo. 575; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412; Coleman v. Kansas City, 348 Mo. 916, 156 S.W. (2d) 644; Natl. En. & Stamp Co. v. St. Louis, 328 Mo. 648, 40 S.W. (2d) 593; Locust Realty Co. v. Kansas City, 115 S.W. (2d) 205; 48 C.J., p. 734, sec. 280, p. 755, sec. 312; 43 C.J., p. 706, sec. 1185, p. 889, secs. 1617, 1618, 1619; 30 C.J., pp. 1298, 1313; 30 Cyc. 1289. (4) There was complete settlement, accord and satisfaction between the parties, which bars and estops the plaintiff, and nothing can open the matter. Priest v. Oehler, 328 Mo. 590, 41 S.W. (2d) 783; Laxton v. Ins. Co., 226 Mo. App. 594, 48 S.W. (2d) 144; Tichenor v. Bowman, 133 S.W. (2d) 324; Lawson v. Cunningham, 275 Mo. 128, 204 S.W. 1100; Hector v. Mann, 225 Mo. 228; State ex rel. v. Hawkins, 169 Mo. 615, 70 S.W. 119; Moore v. McCullough, 8 Mo. 401; Kronenberger v. Binz, 56 Mo. 122; Quinlan v. Keiser, 66 Mo. 605; Marmon v. Waller, 53 Mo. App. 610; McKeen v. Bank, 74 Mo. App. 281; State ex rel. Scotland County v. Ewing, 116 Mo. 129, 22 S.W. 476; State ex rel. Shannon County v. Hawkins, 169 Mo. 615, 70 S.W. 119; Gilbert v. Malan, 100 S.W. (2d) 606; 1 C.J., p. 23, sec. 2, p. 569, sec. 103; 16 Cyc. 789; 21 C.J., p. 23, sec. 2, pp. 1189, 1190, 1206, sec. 207; 28 Cyc. 674. (5) There is no substantial evidence in the record to support the judgment for plaintiff, and judgment should have been for defendant. Ingwerson v. Ry., 205 Mo. 328, 103 S.W. 1143; State ex rel. v. Turner, 328 Mo. 604, 42 S.W. (2d) 594; Steinberg v. Bank, 334 Mo. 297, 67 S.W. (2d) 63; Vastine v. Wilding, 45 Mo. 89; Caviett v. Tharp, 30 Mo. App. 131; Rice v. McFarland, 41 Mo. App. 489; Burnside v. Doolittle, 324 Mo. 722, 24 S.W. (2d) 1011; Haynes v. Dunstan, 104 S.W. (2d) 1025; Deisel Corp. v. Chalmers Co., 231 Mo. App. 631, 104 S.W. (2d) 1029; Bruer v. Dunham, 209 S.W. 573; 22 C.J., p. 115, sec. 55, p. 111, sec. 53; 41 C.J., p. 34, sec. 9, p. 895, sec. 1633; 44 C.J. 122, secs. 22-25. (6) The motion for new trial, and the motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained, because the face of the record shows the judgment is erroneous. Mooney v. Kennett, 19 Mo. 551; McHoney v. German Ins. Co, 44 Mo. App. 426; McCoy v. Yeager, 34 Mo. 134; Pope v. Salesman, 35 Mo. 362; Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434; Hoagland v. Ry., 39 Mo. 451; Peyton v. Rose, 41 Mo. 257; Flinton v. Palmer, 177 S.W. 777; Flowers v. Smith, 214 Mo. 98, 112 S.W. 499; State ex rel. v. Peterson, 142 Mo. 526, 39 S.W. 453; St. Louis v. Senter Comm. Co., 340 Mo. 1078, 102 S.W. (2d) 103; Niederberg v. Golluber, 162 S.W. (2d) 592; Corby v. Taylor, 35 Mo. 447; Moore v. McHaney, 191 Mo. App. 686, 178 S.W. 258; Rumsey v. Ry. Co., 144 Mo. 175, 46 S.W. 144; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ry., 128 Mo. 224, 27 S.W. 568; Lober v. Kansas City, 339 Mo. 1091, 100 S.W. (2d) 267; Coleman v. Kansas City, 156 S.W. (2d) 644; Childs v. Bank of Mo., 17 Mo. 213; Koch v. State Highway Comm., 47 S.W. (2d) 138; State ex rel. v. Douglas, 339 Mo. 187, 95 S.W. (2d) 1179; 1 C.J. 1111, sec. 285; 34 C.J. 34, sec. 159.
William E. Kemp, City Counselor, and David M. Proctor, Assistant City Counselor, for respondent.
(1) The trial court had complete jurisdiction to hear the case. Respondent's supplemental abstract, Exhibits A, B and C. (2) Amended petition states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. State v. Weatherby, 344 Mo. 848, 129 S.W. (2d) 887; Nodaway County v. Kidder, 344 Mo. 795, 129 S.W. (2d) 857; Smith v. Hendricks, 136 S.W. (2d) 449; State v. Thompson, 337 Mo. 328, 85 S.W. (2d) 594; Ruckles v. Pryor, 351 Mo. 819. (3) Contracts with the respondent for the furnishing of materials or services must be in writing. Sec. 3349, R.S. 1939; Sec. 92, Art. IV, Charter of Kansas City; Fleshner v. Kansas City, 156 S.W. (2d) 706; W.W. Cook & Son v. City of Cameron, 128 S.W. 269; Carter v. George, 264 S.W. 463; Donovan, Admr., v. Kansas City, 175 S.W. (2d) 874; Crutchfield v. Warrensburg, 30 Mo. App. 456. (4) The judgment of the trial court was based on substantial evidence and is conclusive on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion, and must be accorded the force of a jury verdict. Meinhardt v. White, 107 S.W. (2d) 1061; In re Franz's Estate, 127 S.W. (2d) 401; Coleman v. Kansas City, 156 S.W. (2d) 644; Nidy v. Rice, 44 S.W. (2d) 196; Indian Creek Land Co. v. Bradford, 82 S.W. (2d) 589; Stratman v. Norge Co. of Mo., 124 S.W. (2d) 572; Redler v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 117 S.W. (2d) 241; Weisenborn v. Rutledge, 121 S.W. (2d) 309; Ruckles v. Pryor, 351 Mo. 819. (5) Statutes of Limitations does not apply because there was but one conspiracy plead and proven which continued from the date of the first illegal payment to appellant to the date of last payment, October, 1938. Secs. 1012, 1014, R.S. 1939; Northern Ky. Tel. Co. v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co., 73 Fed. (2d) 333; Nalle v. Oyster, 230 U.S. 165; State ex inf. Major v. Arkansas Lbr. Co., 260 Mo. 212, 169 S.W. 145; Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347; Ochs v. People, 124 Ill. 399, 16 N.E. 662; Bowman v. Shelton, 158 S.W. 404; Baltimore S.S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316. (6) Knowledge of the city manager of the illegality of payments to appellant cannot be imputed to respondent. American Sash & Door Co. v. Commerce Trust Co., 25 S.W. (2d) 545, affirmed 332 Mo. 98, 56 S.W. (2d) 1034; McGee v. Capital Mutual Assn., 116 S.W. (2d) 204; Walnut Park Loan & Inv. Assn. v. Hennkens, 121 S.W. (2d) 179; Traber v. Hicks, 131 Mo. 180, 32 S.W. 1145; Smith v. Boyd, 162 Mo. 146, 62 S.W. 439; Citizens Trust Co. v. Tindle, 194 S.W. 1066; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Tulsa Industrial Loan & Inv. Co., 83 Fed. (2d) 14.
This is an action by the city of Kansas City, Missouri, a municipal corporation, against H.H. Halvorson to recover certain money allegedly received by defendant as the result of an unlawful conspiracy to defraud the municipality thereof. Judgment for plaintiff for $154,129.21 and defendant appealed. The principal assignments question the jurisdiction of the trial court, the sufficiency of the petition and the substantiveness of the evidence.
[1] Defendant's contention that the trial court did not have jurisdiction is based upon the assertion that no "listing card" was ever filed in the cause as required by Rule 22 of the circuit court of Jackson county, Missouri (Meierhoffer v. Hansel, 294 Mo. 195, 202 (I, II), 243 S.W. 131, 132 [1, 2]), defendant stating the allegations in his motion for new trial, supported by his affidavit, were sufficient for granting a new trial on said ground (Pearce v. Rogers (Mo. App.), 15 S.W. 2d 874, 875[3]). A supplemental abstract filed by plaintiff discloses a "listing card" in the instant case, showing service on defendant's then attorney of record on April 8, 1942, and other supporting data. Trial occurred January 25, 1943. We may not predicate reversible error on the showing made.
Plaintiff's amended petition, omitting matters of a more or...
To continue reading
Request your trial