Mann v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 20 September 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 1510.,1510. |
| Citation | 51 F. Supp. 550 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
| Parties | MANN et al. v. FISHER et al. |
Haysler A. Poague and Barkley M. Brock, both of Clinton, Mo., for plaintiff.
Vance Julian, of Clinton, Mo., Lester Orsborn, of Red Oak, Iowa, and Julius C. Shapiro, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.
By this motion the defendants challenge the jurisdiction of the court, assert that the petition does not state a cause of action, and that there is an improper joinder of causes of action.
Briefs have been filed by each of the parties. These, together with the pleadings have been examined. The amended complaint states substantially that the plaintiffs are partners at Clinton, Missouri, and in connection with their business operate "large truck scales used for the weighing of grain, feed and other material."
The plaintiffs say that their operations with said scales had won for them extensive good will in the community and among their customers because of the accuracy and dependability of such scales; and that by reason thereof they enjoyed the full confidence of both buyers and sellers of the above named commodities. It is then charged that the defendants were engaged in selling such commodities in the community and used the scales of the plaintiffs for weighing such commodities. There are averments then that in the year 1942, and in a large number of transactions with customers of the plaintiffs, the defendants "secretly and fraudulently would so manipulate their truck and trailer and so handle their grain by means and manner unknown to the plaintiff, so that the plaintiffs, because of the fraud of said defendants, were caused to, and did, issue scale tickets which were not accurate or correct, and which scale tickets, as intended by the defendants in the execution of their joint plans and schemes to defraud, showed a larger weight of corn and other commodities in the truck and trailer of the defendants than actually existed; * * *."
There are other averments as to the alleged acts of the defendants, and it is charged that by such operations the defendants injured the good will of plaintiffs' business and plaintiffs seek damages for such alleged trespass.
I. It is the law that good will is property and that it is recognized and protected by law as such. 28 C.J. Section 2, p. 730; Sessinghaus Milling Co. v. Hanebrink, 247 Mo. 212, 152 S.W. 354, Ann.Cas. 1914B, 875. It would follow that any trespass upon this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morton v. Becker
...as a result of appellees' conduct. Under Missouri law, one has a protectable property interest in business goodwill. See Mann v. Fisher, 51 F.Supp. 550 (W.D.Mo.1943). Morton refers us to a decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which found that deprivation of business goodwill may b......
-
Morton Buildings of Neb., Inc. v. Morton Buildings, Inc.
...of damages difficult, it would be a non sequitur to conclude therefrom that irreparable harm has been shown. See Mann v. Fisher, 51 F.Supp. 550 (U.S.D.C.W.D.Mo.1943). The court in Frank H. Gibson, Inc. v. Omaha Coffee Co., 179 Neb. 169, 180, 137 N.W.2d 701, 711-712 (1965) not only recognize......
-
AMERICAN EUTECTIC WELD. AL. SALES CO. v. García-Rodríguez
...alleged loss of good will. Good will though an intangible, constitutes property and is recognized and protected by law, Mann v. Fisher, 51 F.Supp. 550 (U.S.D.C.1943). The amount in controversy should be determined from the standpoint of the plaintiff, Moore's Federal Practice, Vol. 1, 0.91,......
- Adams v. Griffith, 1557.