Mead v. Spalding

• Citation: 6 S.W. 384,94 Mo. 43
• Parties: MEAD v. SPALDING.
• Decision Date: 16 January 1888
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

6 S.W. 384

94 Mo. 43

MEAD v. SPALDING.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January 16, 1888.

HUSBAND AND WIFE — HUSBAND AS WIFE'S AGENT — HYPOTHECATION OF NOTE.

In an action to recover the amount of a note alleged to have been wrongfully hypothecated with defendant by a third party, it was shown that said third party had collected the interest on the note for four years; that it was in his hands by plaintiff's order; that it was negotiable, and had her unqualified indorsement; that it was not overdue when defendant got it; that other notes had been pledged to defendant in the same way, of which plaintiff had knowledge; and that said third party was plaintiff's husband, which fact was concealed from defendant at the time of hypothecation. Held, he was her agent, and judgment was properly entered for defendant.

Error to St. Louis circuit court; AMOS M. THAYER, Judge. Transferred from St. Louis court of appeals.

The plaintiff, Carlline S. Mead, brought this action against C. A. Spalding, defendant, to recover the amount collected by him on a note alleged to be the property of plaintiff, and of which defendant wrongfully obtained possession. The cause was tried to the court, and judgment given for defendant. Plaintiff brought error from the St. Louis city circuit court to the St. Louis court of appeals, and the case was transferred to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts.

G. M. Stewart, for plaintiff in error. S. Hermann, for defendant in error.

BLACK, J.

On the twenty-first May, 1874, the plaintiff, then Carlline S. Cranston, a widow lady, through A. W. Mead, loaned to Stubblefield $3,000, for which she received the note of the latter for that amount, payable in two years to the order of Million, and by him indorsed in blank; the note being secured by a deed of trust on real estate. Mead had been her agent in loaning money before, and continued to act in that capacity after the date of this loan. The note before mentioned was renewed twice, — first, on the twenty-fourth May, 1876, for two years; and again, on the twenty-first May, 1878, for three years. Both renewals were indorsed upon the note; the first being signed by Mead as agent for plaintiff, and the second by "A. W. Mead." The note was deposited with the Third National Bank on the twenty-third November, 1878, where the plaintiff kept an account. She married Mead in April, 1879; and in the following July the bank turned the note over to A. W. Mead on her written order, signed "Mrs. C. S. Cranston." In November, 1879, the defendant loaned Mead $1,000, and received from him the $3,000 note as security. In January, 1880, the defendant made the further loan of $500; and in March, 1880, he made further advances to Mead on the same security; which, with those before made, amounted to the face of the note. These advances not having been paid, defendant collected the amount due on the $3,000 note. Mead died August, 1882, and thereafter the plaintiff brought this suit to recover the amount collected by the defendant; alleging that the note was her property, and that the defendant wrongfully, tortiously, and without her consent obtained possession of the same. The court, the cause having been tried without a jury, found the issues for the defendant, and the case is here on a writ of error sued out by the plaintiff. The answer is, first, a general denial; and it then sets up, in substance, that Mead had full power to collect the interest, and to discount or hypothecate the note. There is a further allegation that defendant purchased the note in good faith, and without any notice that Mead did not have any authority to deal with the note from the owner; that the note bore the plaintiff's written indorsement, and that she thereby put it in the power of Mead to commit a fraud on defendant, and that she should bear the loss, even if Mead did not have her consent to the disposition of the note.

The case as...