Loveland v. Arnold

• Decision Date: 05 May 1924
• Docket Number: (Mo. 14833.)
• Citation: 261 S.W. 741
• Parties: LOVELAND v. ARNOLD
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

261 S.W. 741

LOVELAND v. ARNOLD

(Mo. 14833.)

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 5, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Moniteau County; H. J. Westhues, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Theodore O. Loveland and another, partners as the Brenard Manufacturing Company, against W. F. Arnold and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed

John M. Williams, of California, Mo., for appellants.

S. C. Gill and J. B. Gallagher, both of California, Mo., for respondents.

TRIMBLE, P. J.

Plaintiffs, a partnership, doing business in Iowa City, Iowa, under the name and style of "the Brenard Manufacturing" Company," brought suit against defendants upon six promissory notes each dated November 23, 1921, due respectively in three, four, five, six, seven, and eight months after date, the first being for $20, the second, third, and fifth being for $40 each, and the fourth for $15, aggregating the sum of $195, with interest at 6 per cent, from date, payable to the Brenard Manufacturing Company.

Defendants' answer, duly sworn to, denied each and every allegation in the petition contained, and asserted that defendants "did not sign and deliver to the said Brenard Manufacturing Company the said six notes, in the petition and the several counts thereof described, and filed with the petition."

The jury returned a verdict for defendants, and, judgment being rendered thereon, plaintiffs appealed.

The evidence discloses that the defendants (husband and wife) are partners in a millinery store in Clarksburg, Mo.; the wife being in charge thereof, and her husband engaged in farming.

At the outset of the trial plaintiffs introduced its traveling salesman, who testified that in the millinery store on November 23, 1921, he presented the "proposition" to the wife, which was afterward shown to be in the shape of a contract for the exclusive agency in their town for the "golden-throated Claxtonola phonographs and records" for a period of three years; but inserted in the contract was a clause directing the company to deliver to defendants the "articles mentioned below, in payment for which I here With hand you my notes aggregating $195, which you are to cancel and return to me agreement is not approved by you." The articles "mentioned below" were "1 Style `A' Claxtonola; retail price $225," and a lot of other things necessary for an agency to have in the sale of Claxtonolas. According to the salesman's evidence he told her that, if she bought a machine, she would not have to pay anything on it for three months; that he was trying to sell her a machine; and that she asked him why could not she have an agency to sell them; that he explained the contract to her and had her read it over, and after doing so, she signed the contract and notes with the partnership name by her. This witness, on direct examination, went fully into what was said and done by him and the wife before and at the time the contract and notes were executed. He also testified that the husband came in just after she had signed them, and that he "told him the proposition," showed him the contract and notes, and said to him, "Mr. Arnold, I gave you a good, exceptionally good contract for three years"; that the husband replied, turn this over to my wife, what my wife does goes with me." Witness says he then left, as the train he was going to catch whistled just then. The witness, on cross-examination, again went fully into the circumstances and conversation taking place in the store from the time he entered until he left. According to this witness' testimony on direct examination the wife signed the contract and all the notes, and after she had done so he changed one of the notes to read three months after date.

According to Mrs. Arnold's evidence the agent represented to her that he was not selling Claxtonolas, but was trying to get some one to take an agency; that the contract was an agency contract only, and she would not be required to buy a machine; that she was not buying anything; that when she went to sign the contract he asked her to sign in several places because the business was very large, having a great many departments, and these "application blanks" went to various clerks in the different departments; that the papers she signed had no written matter on them like the notes sued on did, but all was printed matter, and nothing thereon written in ink; that when she, signed she was told to "bear down hard" on the pen. She denied signing any notes; and...