King v. Mann
| Decision Date | 31 December 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 12644.,12644. |
| Citation | 199 S.W. 705 |
| Parties | KING v. MANN et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bates County; C. A. Calvird, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Suit by A. J. King against John E. Mann and W. T. Mann. From an order granting plaintiff a new trial after verdict for defendants, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
D. M. Gibson and J. M. Hull, both of Nevada, Mo., for appellants. A. J. King and W. M. Bowker, both of Nevada, Mo., for respondent.
This is a suit upon a contract for an attorney's fee. The suit was commenced on the 12th day of June, 1915, before a justice in Vernon county, there tried, and thereafter appealed to the circuit court of that county. Trial de novo was had on the 8th day of October, 1915, resulting in a judgment for defendants and the granting of a new trial by the court. There is nothing in the abstract of the record showing the grounds set forth in the motion for a new trial. It is stated that the court granted a new trial without assigning any reason therefor. After the first trial in the circuit court a change of venue to the circuit court of Bates county was had, and on trial there a jury again returned a verdict for the defendants, and thereafter the court granted a new trial without assigning any reason therefor.
On the part of the plaintiff the evidence, as testified to by several witnesses, shows that the defendants were stockholders in the Nevada Packing Company, a corporation doing business in Nevada, Mo.; that a deed of trust upon the property of the corporation had been foreclosed, and at the foreclosure sale one of the stockholders had bought in the property and was about to reorganize the company; that shortly after the sale, on the 9th day of January, 1915, defendants employed plaintiff as attorney to bring a suit to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud. It was agreed between plaintiff and defendants that plaintiff was to file suit and file in the recorder's office a lis pendens; it being the idea of the parties that this would tie up the reorganization to such an extent as to force a compromise from the buyer of the property at the trustee's sale. Plaintiff says it was agreed that defendants should pay him the sum of $100 for filing said suit and lis pendens. The suit and lis pendens were filed, and plaintiff brought this suit for $100 for his fee for filing the same.
On the part of the defendants the testimony shows the facts as above set forth, except the defendants claimed that the contract was made by John E. Mann, and that W. T. Mann was not a party to the same; that the agreement was that plaintiff was not only to file the suit and lis pendens, but "to fight the case to a finish in the circuit court," and if he lost the same, that he was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King & Smith v. Kansas City Life Insurance Co.
...violated. That very predicament confronted this court in King v. Mann, supra, 315 Mo. l.c. 327, 286 S.W. l.c. 104(6). See also same case 199 S.W. 705; 207 S.W. 836; 208 Mo. App. 642, 235 S.W. 506. It appears that the defendant there prevailed in the first circuit court trial and the plainti......
-
King v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
...violated. That very predicament confronted this court in King v. Mann, supra, 315 Mo. l. c. 327, 286 S.W. l. c. 104(6). See also same case 199 S.W. 705; 207 S.W. 836; 208 642, 235 S.W. 506. It appears that the defendant there prevailed in the first circuit court trial and the plaintiff got ......
-
Tidd v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...... was granted, the presumption is that it was granted because. the evidence was insufficient. (King v. Mann (Mo. App.), 199 S.W. 705; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Rollins, 32 Cal.App. 782, 164 P. 53.). . . T. BAILEY LEE, J. Nm. E. ......
-
King v. Mann
...that ground, and if so, that was a matter exclusively within the discretion of the trial court and was not reviewable on appeal. [King v. Mann, 199 S.W. 705.] The order the trial court having been affirmed, the cause was returned to the Circuit Court of Bates County for a second start, resu......