Klein v. St. Louis Motor Car Co.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 16959.,16959. |
| Citation | 237 S.W. 848 |
| Parties | KLEIN v. ST. LOUIS MOTOR CAR CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Franklin Ferriss, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by George Klein against the St. Louis Motor Car Company (formerly the Mitchell Automobile Corporation of Missouri). From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Cornwell, Hicks & Gary, of St. Louis, for appellant.
John B. Reno and C. Edward Leffler, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an action for the alleged conversion by the defendant of an automobile belonging to plaintiff. On and prior to October 25, 1918, plaintiff was the owner and in possession of a "Moon"' automobile, which he had purchased some time in 1917. The evidence shows that plaintiff paid $1,100 for the automobile, which was of a special and unusual design, and that he immediately made certain repairs, alterations, and additions thereto costing $590. It appears that on or about October 25, 1918, plaintiff's children, two sons and a daughter, without authority from plaintiff, delivered plaintiff's said automobile to defendant, together with their note for $350, in exchange for an automobile, belonging to the defendant company—then known as the " Upon learning of the transaction plaintiff made demand upon defendant for the return of his automobile, or its value in money, which was refused.
Plaintiff, after testifying that he paid $1,100 for his automobile, and spent $590 thereon, as aforesaid, testified that the automobile was worth $1,700; that he knew what other cars were sold for and the value of the cars; that he was not experienced in the matter of buying and selling automobiles, but had a little common sense. He also testified that he knew the value of the automobile in October, 1918, from the appearance of the car, and that a man had offered to sell it for him for $1,700; that a young man in a garage at Maplewood had offered to sell it for $1,700, but he did not authorize the sale.
The testimony of defendant's president is to the effect that plaintiff's automobile had a "trade value" of about $800, and that the cash market thereof was about $700. In the trade he made with plaintiff's children, however, he placed a valuation of $900 on plaintiff's automobile. And the evidence shows that he offered to take plaintiff's automobile in exchange for a "Ben-Hur" automobile on a trade...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Spears v. McCullen
... ... Hon. Edward J. McCullen, Hon. Wm. C. Hughes and Hon. Lyon Anderson, Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals No. 40590Supreme Court of MissouriMarch 8, 1948 ... ... 56; Young v. Bacon, 183 S.W. 1079; Smith ... v. Scudiero, 204 S.W. 565; Hoffmann v. Peoples Motor ... Bus Co., 288 S.W. 948; Ulmer v. Farmham, 28 ... S.W.2d 113; Heckert v. St. Louis Hockey Club, ... Randol, 225 Mo.App. 1092, 40 S.W.2d 500; Taylor v ... St. Louis & H.R. Co., 256 S.W. 499; Klein v. St ... Louis Motor Car Co., 237 S.W. 848; 22 C.J. 581; 32 C.J ... 315, 316, note 30. (16) ... ...
-
Hood v. M. F. A. Mut. Ins. Co.
...Co. of America, Mo.App., 297 S.W. 175, 176(1); Grath v. Wilson Motor Car Co., Mo.App., 253 S.W. 776, 777(2); Klein v. St. Louis Motor Car Co., Mo.App., 237 S.W. 848. See also State v. Brewer, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 782, 783(1); Keeton v. Sloan's Moving & Storage Co., Mo.App., 282 S.W.2d 194, 199(1......
-
State v. Bresse
...amply qualified to state the value of his own car. Finn v. Indemnity Co., 297 S.W. 176; Grath v. Motor Car Co., 253 S.W. 777; Klein v. Motor Car Co., 237 S.W. 848. C. Cooley, C., concurs; Westhues, C., not sitting. OPINION DAVIS An information, filed in the Circuit Court of Saline County, a......
-
State v. Bresse
...amply qualified to state the value of his own car. Finn v. Indemnity Co., 297 S.W. 176; Grath v. Motor Car Co., 253 S.W. 777; Klein v. Motor Car Co., 237 S.W. 848. DAVIS, An information, filed in the Circuit Court of Saline County, after averring that defendant had been convicted of burglar......