Kopp v. Traders Gate City Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 08 March 1948
• Docket Number: 40056
• Citation: Kopp v. Traders Gate City Nat. Bank, 357 Mo. 659, 210 S.W.2d 49 (Mo. 1948)
• Parties: Margaret Kopp v. Traders Gate City National Bank, a Corporation, Executor of the Estate of John J. O'Connell, Deceased, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

210 S.W.2d 49

357 Mo. 659

Margaret Kopp v. Traders Gate City National Bank, a Corporation, Executor of the Estate of John J. O'Connell, Deceased, Appellant

No. 40056

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 8, 1948

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1948.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Paul A. Buzard Judge.

Affirmed.

Maurice J. O'Sullivan, John J. Killiger, Jr., James P. AlywardGeorge V. Aylward, Terrence M. O'Brien and William B. Teasdale for appellant.

(1) The discretionary power to grant a new trial which is generally not subject to appellate review extends only to questions of fact and to matters affecting issues of fact.Schipper v. Brashear Truck Co.,132 S.W.2d 993, 125 A.L.R. 675;Castorina v. Herrmann,340 Mo. 1026, 104 S.W.2d 297.(2) Such discretionary power may not be exercised arbitrarily nor unjustly, but only with wise judicial discretion and not without foundation in fact.Schipper case, ante;Van Loon v. St. Joseph Ry.,271 Mo. 209, 195 S.W. 737.(3) The exercise of such discretionary power is reviewable on appeal when based upon erroneous views of the law and not upon sound judicial discretion.Schipper case, ante;Hall v. Martindale,166 S.W.2d 594;Davis v. Hill Bros. Veneer Co.,20 S.W.2d 928.(4) Review and reversal of an order granting a new trial because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is proper when a submissible case was not made by the movant for a new trial.Lindsey v. Vance,337 Mo. 1111, 88 S.W.2d 150;O'Dell v. American Natl. Ins. Co.,107 S.W. 108;Toedtman v. Grass,116 S.W.2d 153.(5) Such review and reversal is proper when a finding for movant, if made, could not be upheld.Sec. 126, Civil Code;Laws, 1943, p. 390;Castorina v. Herrmann,340 Mo. 1026, 104 S.W.2d 297;Ward v. Prudential Ins. Co.,105 S.W.2d 983.(6) Such review and reversal is proper where there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a verdict in favor of respondent and uncontroverted, competent and substantial evidence affirmatively establishes as a matter of law that respondent is not entitled to the relief claimed or to any relief.United Construction Co. v. St. Louis,334 Mo. 1006, 69 S.W.2d 639;Borack v. Mosler Safe Co.,288 Mo. 83, 231 S.W. 623;Lyons v. Corder,253 Mo. 539, 162 S.W. 606;Ottomeyer v. Pritchett,178 Mo. 160, 77 S.W. 62;Roberts v. M. & K. Tel. Co.,166 Mo. 370, 66 S.W. 155;Payne v. Reed,332 Mo. 343, 59 S.W.2d 43.(7) Such review and reversal is proper where no competent record evidence is shown to weigh in support of the claim relied upon to authorize a recovery by movant.Castorina case, ante.(8) Evidence of another contract from the alleged express contract relied upon and submitted as a basis for recovery will not establish a submissible case for movant.Deisel-Wemmer-Gilbert Co. v. David Chalmers Tobacco Co.,231 Mo.App. 631, 104 S.W.2d 1029.(9) There was a family relationship between deceased and respondent, and respondent failed to prove that there was an express agreement legally obligating deceased to pay her for her services.Bircher v. Boemler,204 Mo. 554, 103 S.W. 40;Wood v. Lewis,183 Mo.App. 553, 167 S.W. 666;Nelson v. Poorman's Estate,215 S.W. 753;Smith v. Davis, Estate,206 Mo.App. 446, 230 S.W. 670;Clow v. Wormington,206 S.W. 415;Guenther v. Birkicht's Administrator,22 Mo. 439.(10) There being a family relationship, respondent was required to prove an express contract.Bircher v. Boemler,204 Mo. 554, 103 S.W. 40;Witte v. Smith,237 Mo.App. 639, 152 S.W.2d 661;Brand v. Ray,156 Mo.App. 622, 137 S.W. 623;Smith v. Davis' Estate,206 Mo.App. 446, 230 S.W. 670;Taylor v. George,176 Mo.App. 215, 161 S.W. 1187;Kostuba v. Miller,137 Mo. 161, 38 S.W. 946;Woods v. Land,30 Mo.App. 176;Goff v. Scoggin,293 S.W. 480.(11) Proof of such an express contract had to be clear and convincing.Smith v. Davis' Estate,206 Mo.App. 446, 230 S.W. 670;Opel v. Aurien,352 Mo. 592, 179 S.W.2d 1;Walker v. Bohannan,243 Mo. 119, 147 S.W. 1024;Shaw v. Hamilton,346 Mo. 366, 141 S.W.2d 817;Keller v. Lewis County,345 Mo. 536, 134 S.W.2d 48;Rosenwald v. Middlebrook,188 Mo. 58, 86 S.W. 200;Asbury v. Hicklin,181 Mo. 658, 81 S.W. 390.(12)Respondent failed to prove an express contract legally obligating deceased to pay her for her services.Respondent also failed to prove that deceased intended to pay her for her services or that she expected payment for them.Bircher v. Boemler,204 Mo. 554, 103 S.W. 40;Brand v. Ray,156 Mo.App. 622, 137 S.W. 623;Steele v. Steele,161 Mo. 566, 61 S.W. 815;Clow v. Wormington,206 S.W. 415;Witte v. Smith,237 Mo.App. 639, 152 S.W.2d 661;Woods v. Land,30 Mo.App. 176;Smith v. Davis, Estate,206 Mo.App. 446, 230 S.W. 670;Taylor v. George,176 Mo.App. 215, 161 S.W. 1187;Crowley v. Dagley,174 Mo.App. 561, 161 S.W. 366;Wood v. Lewis,183 Mo.App. 553, 167 S.W. 666;Asbury v. Hicklin,181 Mo. 658, 81 S.W. 390.(13) The general contractual release of June 2, 1943, precluded recovery on respondent's claim.Settlement contracts, especially family settlements, are favorites of the law.Mateer v. Mo. Pac. Railway,105 Mo. 320, 16 S.W. 839;Sheppard v. Travelers' Protective Ins. Co.,233 Mo.App. 602, 124 S.W.2d 528;Brown v. Corn Products Co.,227 Mo.App. 548, 55 S.W.2d 706;Pfiffner v. Kroger,140 S.W.2d 79;Kehoe v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,105 F.2d 552;Tulsa City Lines v. Mains,107 F.2d 377;Chase Natl. Bank v. Wabash Railway,40 F.Supp. 859;Adamack v. Herman,33 S.W.2d 135.(14)Respondent's release covers this claim.Benoist v. Murrin,47 Mo. 537;Crenshaw v. Crenshaw,276 Mo. 471, 208 S.W. 249;Robinson and Wentz v. McFaul,19 Mo. 549;Bethany Saving Bank v. Cushman,66 Mo.App. 102;Hickox v. Hickox,151 S.W.2d 913;Golden v. Golden,155 Okla. 10, 8 P.2d 42;Strasser v. Mack,184 S.W.2d 337;Continental Corp. v. Gowdy,283 Mass. 204, 186 N.E. 244, 87 A.L.R. 1039;Castell v. United States,98 F.2d 88;Hume v. American-West African Line,36 F.Supp. 880;Nahtel Corp. v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co.,141 F.2d 1;Altman v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.,124 F.2d 177.(15) There was consideration for the release.Wood v. Telephone Co.,223 Mo. 537, 123 S.W. 6;Sheppard v. Travelers' Protective Ins. Co.,233 Mo.App. 602, 124 S.W.2d 528;Wright v. Hetherlin,277 Mo. 99, 209 S.W. 871;Todd v. Security Ins. Co.,203 Mo.App. 474, 221 S.W. 808;Parsons v. Harvey,195 S.W. 530;Nelson v. Troll,173 Mo.App. 51, 156 S.W. 16;Pollman Coal Co. v. St. Louis,145 Mo. 651, 47 S.W. 563;State ex rel. Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Shain,339 Mo. 903, 98 S.W.2d 597;Wood v. Telephone Co.,223 Mo. 537, 123 S.W. 6;Sheppard v. Travelers' Ins. Co.,233 Mo.App. 602, 124 S.W.2d 528;Creason v. Harding,344 Mo. 452, 126 S.W.2d 1179;Zinke v. Maccabees,275 Mo. 660, 205 S.W. 1;Painter v. Prudential Ins. Co.,228 Mo.App. 576, 71 S.W.2d 483.(16) The release is binding.Brennecke v. Ganahl Lumber Co.,329 Mo. 341, 44 S.W.2d 627;Dyrssen v. Union Electric L. & P. Co.,317 Mo. 221, 295 S.W. 116;Crenshaw v. Crenshaw,276 Mo. 471, 208 S.W. 249;Employers' Indemnity Corp. v. Garrett,327 Mo. 874, 38 S.W.2d 1049;Burk v. Walton,337 Mo. 781, 86 S.W.2d 92;Gates Hotel Co. v. Federal Inv. Co.,331 Mo. 107, 52 S.W.2d 1016;Ezo v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.,87 S.W.2d 1051;Caneer v. Kent,342 Mo. 878, 119 S.W.2d 214;McCormick v. Transit Railway Co.,154 Mo. 191, 55 S.W. 252.(17) Recovery on respondent's claim was also precluded by respondent's acceptance of checks marked paid in full for labor and services to date.Dean v. Bigelow,292 S.W. 25;Booth v. Dougan,217 S.W. 326;Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Rau,130 F.2d 499;McCormick v. St. Louis,166 Mo. 315, 65 S.W. 1038;Bartley v. Pictorial Review Co.,188 Mo.App. 639, 176 S.W. 489;Ellis v. Mansfield,215 Mo.App. 292, 256 S.W. 165;McGregor v. Ware Construction Co.,188 Mo. 611, 87 S.W. 981;Harlin and Griffin v. Missouri State Highway Comm.,51 S.W.2d 553;Pollman Coal Co. v. St. Louis,145 Mo. 651, 47 S.W. 563;Andrews v. Stubbs Contracting Co.,100 Mo.App. 599, 75 S.W. 178;St. Joseph School Board v. Hull,72 Mo.App. 403;Adams v. Helm,55 Mo. 468;Halloway v. Creamery Co.,286 Mo. 489, 228 S.W. 451.(18) The release contract of June 2, 1943, barred respondent's claim in plain and unambiguous terms, hence, unless reformed, said contract had to be enforced according to its terms; said contract could only be reformed by a court of equitable jurisdiction and neither the probate court nor the court below had such equitable jurisdiction.Said unambiguous contract could not be varied or contradicted by parol evidence, and its interpretation, meaning or intent could not be submitted to the jury.Mueller v. Shell Pipe Line Corp.,38 S.W.2d 297;Gunter v. Standard Oil Co.,60 F.2d 389;Harrison Engineering Construction Corp. v. United States,68 F.Supp. 350;Ezo v. St. Louis Smelting & Ref. Co.,87 S.W.2d 1051;Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co.,102 F.2d 16, 122 A.L.R. 1415, certiorari denied307 U.S. 638, 59 S.Ct. 1037, 83 L.Ed. 1519;Rawlings v. Rawlings,332 Mo. 503, 59 S.W.2d 735;In re Ermeling's Estate,119 S.W.2d 755;In re Ermeling's Estate,131 S.W.2d 912;Teich v. Globe Ind. Co., 25 S.W.2d 554.

C. W. Prince, Wm. Dennis Bush and F. Richard Weber for respondent.

(1) There was a family relationship between deacesed and respondent, and a fiduciary relationship, but there was also an express agreement legally obligating deceased to pay respondent for her services.Hukreda's Estate, 172 S.W.2d 824;Hall v Getman,97 S.W. 607, 121 Mo.App. 630;Lillard v. Wilson,77 S.W. 74, 178 Mo. 145;Patrick v. Crank,110 S.W.2d 381;Chandler v Hulen,71 S.W.2d 752, 335 Mo. 167;Miller v. Richardson,56 S.W.2d 614;Blackwell v. De Arment's Estate,30 S.W. 1035;Castorina v. Herrmann,104 S.W.2d 297, 340 Mo. 1026.(2) The release did...