Mason v. Geist
| Decision Date | 06 June 1924 |
| Citation | 263 S.W. 236 |
| Parties | MASON v. GEIST. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert W. Hall, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Julia J. Mason against William Geist. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Anderson, Gilbert & Wolfort, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Kinealy & Kinealy, of St. Louis, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant, and in her petition alleged that defendant converted to his use certain personal property belonging to plaintiff consisting of one fur coat, one fur muff, 74 pieces of silverware, and 16 pictures. Plaintiff asked damages in the sum of $1,250.
The answer was a general denial.
The case was tried before the court without the aid of a jury. No declarations of law were asked or given by or on behalf of either party. The court rendered judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
At the time the goods in question were pawned the defendant and his wife operated a certain loan company, which was afterwards disincorporated, and it was agreed between the parties that the case might be brought against the defendant. It was also admitted that the defendant received and cashed the following money and express orders as shown by Plaintiff's Exhibit N:
Aug. 26, 1912 5.00 Western Exp. (In lead pencil)
May 16, 1912 10.00 P. O. (In lead pencil)
Aug. 14, 1912 25.00 P. O. (In lead pencil)
June 9, 1913 20.00
May 22, 1913 10.00 P. O. 10.00 (In lead pencil)
Jan. 28, 1913 5.00 P. O. (In lead pencil)
Feb. 9, 1913 9.00 U. S. Exp. (In lead pencil)
May 20, 1912 25.25
Nov. 27, 1912 15.00
Nov. 25, 1911 30.50 Little Coat (In lead pencil)
July 14, 1913 6.00 W. F. 6.00 (In lead pencil)
Dec. 18, 1913 6.00 W. F. X. (In lead pencil)
April 28, 1914 7.50 Am. X. (In lead pencil)
Nov. 11, 1913 6.00
______
180.25
As per memo 50.00
______
230.25
Less little coat 30.50 (in lead pencil)
______
199.75
Edmond A. Mason, plaintiff's husband, testified that he, acting as his wife's agent, pawned the goods mentioned in the petition with the defendant; that the coat and muff were pawned at one time, the silverware at another time, and the pictures at still another date. In addition to those items he pawned a small coat which he redeemed for $30.50; that he made the payments as shown by the statement, Exhibit N, amounting to $199.75, on the pledges made for Mrs. Mason; that he only pawned the articles once; that he agreed to pay defendant 5 per cent. per month interest on these loans.
Plaintiff testified she requested her husband to pawn the articles, and fixed the value as amounting to that set out in the petition. The property had belonged to her mother. These articles were afterwards purchased from the defendant by plaintiff's brother. She also stated that the articles had never been pawned but once.
The defendant testified that these items on which the pawn tickets were issued were pledged with him, and had been pledged with him several times; that they had been redeemed and taken out and then repledged on different occasions; that he never at any time charged over 2 per cent. a month interest, and had never had any agreement about charging plaintiff any higher rate of interest; that the interest was not paid on these articles; that there were some goods taken out while these loans were there; that plaintiff or her husband would send interest on one loan, and then $5 or $6 on account of some other pledge until that was taken up, and then the goods would be shipped back; that he could not remember just how the money represented by the post office money orders and express receipts was applied, but that some of it was applied on other loans, and some on one ticket that was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kegan v. Park Bank of St. Joseph
... ... Griffith v. Casualty ... Co., 299 Mo. 444; Downs v. Horton, 287 Mo. 432; ... Berger v. Storage Co., 136 Mo.App. 36; Mason v ... Geist, 263 S.W. 237. (2) The mere fact that appellant ... was a customer of the bank and deposited his funds with the ... bank did not ... ...
-
Kegan v. Park Bank
...consent. As to the burden of proof, the instruction is unquestionably right in placing the burden of proof on appellant. Mason v. Geist (Mo. App.) 263 S. W. 236. As regards respondent's recoupment, it would seem, on principle, that the burden ought not to be shifted to respondent, for it wa......
-
State ex rel. Ward v. Trimble
... ... Mo. 227; Griffith v. Casualty Co., 299 Mo. 426; ... Downs v. Horton, 287 Mo. 414; Mezeworth v ... Metropolitan Life, 249 S.W. 113; Mason v ... Geist, 263 S.W. 236; Kenefick-Hammond Co. v. Fire ... Ins. Soc., 205 Mo. 312; Pierce v. Shapleigh Hdw ... Co., 14 S.W.2d 513; Bond v. Ry ... ...