LeHndorf v. Schields

• Decision Date: 17 April 1883
• Citation: 13 Mo.App. 486
• Parties: HENRY LEHNDORF, Respondent, v. ABRAHAM SCHIELDS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

13 Mo.App. 486

HENRY LEHNDORF, Respondent,

v.ABRAHAM SCHIELDS, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Apr. 17, 1883.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, HORNER, J.

Affirmed.

SIDNEY K. SMITH, for the appellant.

WILLIAM S. STEWART, for the respondent.

LEWIS, P. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff began this suit before a justice of the peace, alleging that the defendant, on December 11, 1879, in consideration of $250 paid to him by plaintiff, agreed and bound himself to procure such sureties as might be required upon appearance and appeal-bonds in certain proceedings relating to the lottery business, in which plaintiff was interested, up to January 6, 1880; that plaintiff paid the said sum of money to defendant, but the defendant had wholly failed and refused to perform the contract on his part. Wherefore plaintiff demanded judgment for a return of the money paid. The justice gave judgment for $250 against the defendant, who appealed to the circuit court, where the plaintiff got judgment for $225.

The defendant alleges that he undertook to furnish only one bond, and that he did furnish that one, wherefore he is not liable to the plaintiff's demand. A writing was exhibited in evidence, as follows: “St. Louis, Dec. 11, 1879. I hereby agree to procure bond in the prosecution of lottery business of which Henry Lehndorf is manager, up to Jan. 6, 1880. A. Schields.” This paper shows on its face that it does not contain the entire contract. Neither the consideration, nor the person to whom the promise is made, appears. The omitted terms were properly supplied by oral testimony, which explained also to what prosecutions the agreement applied, and what sort of bonds were intended. It was manifestly the understanding of the parties that the word “bond” in the singular form of expression, was used in the general sense of security, and was meant to cover as many bonds as might be required, up to the date specified. It appeared in testimony that “several” bonds were so required, but the defendant furnished only one. He refused to furnish any more, “because,” as he said, “this court would not accept his man on any more bonds.” The defence on this ground has no merit.

The defendant argues that the contract was void, as being immoral and against public policy, in its tendency to procure the release of persons arrested for violations of law. It is a fundamental principle, that an act which in itself is lawful, cannot be adjudged void,...