Labeaume ex rel. Chouteau v. Sweeney

• Decision Date: 31 March 1855
• Citation: 21 Mo. 166
• Parties: LABEAUME, TO USE OF CHOUTEAU, Plaintiff in Error, v. SWEENEY, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

21 Mo. 166

LABEAUME, TO USE OF CHOUTEAU, Plaintiff in Error,

v.SWEENEY, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1855.

1. A boat was seized by attachment in a suit against the owner. S., the master of the boat, who had no other interest in it, executed a bond, with L. as surety, conditioned for the forthcoming of the boat. The boat was subsequently sold, and C. became part owner. L. was about to deliver up the boat, when C. gave him a bond of indemnity. C. afterwards paid the indemnity to L., and took an assignment of his recourse against S. In a suit brought by C., in the name of L., against S., to recover the amount thus paid, held, that he could not recover.

Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

The facts shown by the record in this case are the same as when it was formerly here (17 Mo. Rep. 153), with the following exceptions:

It now appears that after the delivery bond was entered into by Labeaume and Sweeney, James Myers became the owner of the steamboat Frontier, and brought her to St. Louis; that upon her arrival here, Labeaume told Myers that the boat would be delivered up to the sheriff under the bond, unless an indemnity was given against it. Myers thereupon transferred one-fourth of the boat to Chouteau, and gave him the agency of the boat, and Chouteau then gave an indemnity to Labeaume against the bond. The object of the arrangement was to secure the parties liable on the delivery bond, and to free the boat from detention.

The instructions given by the Court of Common Pleas were based upon the idea that the law formerly laid down by this court was applicable in the present aspect of the case.

C. B. Lord, for plaintiff in error.

Glover & Richardson, for defendant in error.

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

When this case was formerly here, it was not presented in the shape which it now wears. It did not then appear in what capacity Chouteau interfered in this transaction. The cause was determined on the face of the obligations, as they stood, there being no equitable circumstances for Sweeney, showing that Chouteau was not entitled to the money he sought to recover through Labeaume.

We are of the opinion that the case now wears an aspect different from that it formerly assumed.

This action was commenced under the former system of practice, and is for money paid for the use of another. He who paid it has been indemnified, and he is now seeking to recover it for the benefit of him by whom he was indemnified. It is as if a bill in equity had been brought by Chouteau to subject Sweeney to the payment of the money he has been compelled to refund to Labeaume. The proceeding being equitable in its nature, if Chouteau is not in equity and good conscience entitled to demand the money of Sweeney, this action cannot be maintained. Labeaume, as surety, entered into a bond, with Sweeney as principal, for the forthcoming of a steamboat, to answer a judgment in a suit against the owner. Sweeney, it appears, was not otherwise interested in the boat than as her commander at the time of the attachment. Afterwards, Labeaume threatened to detain the boat, unless he was indemnified. Chouteau came forward and gave him a bond of...