Meyers v. Field

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtHOLMES
Citation37 Mo. 434
PartiesHENRY MEYERS, Respondent, v. RICHARD R. FIELD et als., Appellants
Decision Date31 March 1866

37 Mo. 434

HENRY MEYERS, Respondent,
v.
RICHARD R. FIELD et als., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1866.


Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

The cause come to an issue on the amended petition and answer. The amended petition is in these words:

The plaintiff states that the defendants are co-partners in business, in the city of St. Louis, under the firm name of Field Bros.; that on or about the month of December, 1858, he entered into an arrangement with defendants, who were then, and have been since, wholesale dealers in drygoods and tailoring stock in the city of St. Louis, by which agreement the plaintiff was to conduct a retail business in ready made clothing in said city, and said defendants were to supply the raw material for said business out of their stock, at their regular wholesale prices for the same; that is, they were to supply plaintiff with all the goods necessary to carry on said business, so far as the same could be supplied out of their regular stock, at their regular wholesale prices for the same.

[37 Mo. 435]

Plaintiff was to supply all the other goods necessary to carry on said business himself, and, in consideration that plaintiff should bestow on said retail business his labor, custom, and business qualifications, he was to receive all the net profits arising from the sale of said goods, and resulting from said business, after paying the expenses thereof.

“Plaintiff states that he entered into said agreement with said defendants, and purchased goods therefor from defendants and others, and carried on the said business of manufacturing and selling ready-made clothing at the store-room No. 99 North Third street, in the city of St. Louis, from December, 1858, until said defendants broke up said business by taking possession of said store and stock about January 3, 1860, hereinafter mentioned; that during that period he obtained from said defendants large quantities of goods, and settled for the same in pursuance of said agreement.

Plaintiff states that it was understood and agreed that plaintiff should pay over to said defendants the proceeds of said store, from the sales thereof, to the amount of the bills invoiced by said defendants to plaintiff, after paying the ordinary and current expenses of carrying on said business, cost of manufacturing, and other requisite outlays.

Plaintiff states that he complied with his said agreement on his part, and fairly and honestly carried on said business to the best of his ability. And said plaintiff states that, during the period referred to, he had purchased from other houses than defendants', goods for the use of said business, with the knowledge and consent of said defendants, and such as were not kept for sale in the store of said defendants, and which were necessary for said retail business.

Plaintiff states that on or about January 1, 1860, the said defendants took possession of store building, stock, evidences of indebtedness, and assets, to the amount of $13,218 73 cts., the particulars and items of which will appear by an account filed with the original petition in this cause, marked “Exhibit A.”

[37 Mo. 436]

Amount of stock taken by Field Bros., January 3, 1860, at cost,

$9,437 35
Building
1,500 00
Fixtures of store
816 50
Bills receivable, as per annexed schedule
1,464 88

$13,218 73

And plaintiff further states that said building, mentioned in said exhibit, had been, previously to the time of entering into said arrangement with defendants, purchased by them for the use of plaintiff at the price and sum of fifteen hundred dollars, and that said sum had been by these defendants, charged in the account against this plaintiff, and paid by this plaintiff to said defendants and received by them.

And plaintiff states that by reason of their taking possession of and retaining said building, and of their receiving and retaining the rents and profits of the same, and keeping the possession thereof, he is entitled to be credited on his account with the said sum of $1,500, so paid by him to them for said building.

Plaintiff states that the total amount for which these defendants were entitled to credit for goods, merchandise, &c., so delivered by them as aforesaid up to the third day of January, 1860, was the sum of $11,489.99, the particulars and items of which will appear by an account filed with the original petition in this case, and made an exhibit, marked “B.”

STORE 99 NORTH THIRD STREET,

To FIELD BROS. DR.
Statement, January 23, 1859
$7,806 12
Statement, July 1, 1859
5,967 81
Statement, January 3, 1860
4,363 43
$18,137 36
CR. By Cash, as per book,
6,667 37
Balance

$11,469 99

And plaintiff states that the excess of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...19 Mo. 551; McHoney v. German Ins. Co, 44 Mo. App. 426; McCoy v. Yeager, 34 Mo. 134; Pope v. Salesman, 35 Mo. 362; Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434; Hoagland v. Ry., 39 Mo. 451; Peyton v. Rose, 41 Mo. 257; Flinton v. Palmer, 177 S.W. 777; Flowers v. Smith, 214 Mo. 98, 112 S.W. 499; State ex rel.......
  • Hicks v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 31, 1884
    ...of law and equity are blended, the distinction between law and equity proceedings exists as much as ever in this state. Myers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434; Pauly v. Vogle, 42 Mo. 303; Wynn v. Corey, 43 Mo. 301. (2) As the issues were purely in law, the court could not render a judgment in favor of ......
  • St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. v. Wanamaker & Brown
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 28, 1905
    ...relationship between Lurie and the defendant was—whether that of jobber and customer, principal and agent or partners (see Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434)—will not be determined, because the most that is claimed by the plaintiff is that he was an agent, and, though the defendant asserts he was......
  • LaCkland v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 22, 1878
    ...486; Jones v. Moore, 42 Mo. 419; Gray v. Payne, 43 Mo. 204; Wyman v. Casey, 43 Mo. 303; Henderson v. Dickey, 50 Mo. 165; Myers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434. Equity jurisdiction; non-residents.-- Scott v. McMillen, 1 Litt. 302; Kepper v. Glaney, 2 Blackf. 357; Peay v. Morrison, 10 Gratt. 149; Farrar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...19 Mo. 551; McHoney v. German Ins. Co, 44 Mo. App. 426; McCoy v. Yeager, 34 Mo. 134; Pope v. Salesman, 35 Mo. 362; Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434; Hoagland v. Ry., 39 Mo. 451; Peyton v. Rose, 41 Mo. 257; Flinton v. Palmer, 177 S.W. 777; Flowers v. Smith, 214 Mo. 98, 112 S.W. 499; State ex rel.......
  • Hicks v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 31, 1884
    ...of law and equity are blended, the distinction between law and equity proceedings exists as much as ever in this state. Myers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434; Pauly v. Vogle, 42 Mo. 303; Wynn v. Corey, 43 Mo. 301. (2) As the issues were purely in law, the court could not render a judgment in favor of ......
  • St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. v. Wanamaker & Brown
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 28, 1905
    ...relationship between Lurie and the defendant was—whether that of jobber and customer, principal and agent or partners (see Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434)—will not be determined, because the most that is claimed by the plaintiff is that he was an agent, and, though the defendant asserts he was......
  • LaCkland v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 22, 1878
    ...486; Jones v. Moore, 42 Mo. 419; Gray v. Payne, 43 Mo. 204; Wyman v. Casey, 43 Mo. 303; Henderson v. Dickey, 50 Mo. 165; Myers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434. Equity jurisdiction; non-residents.-- Scott v. McMillen, 1 Litt. 302; Kepper v. Glaney, 2 Blackf. 357; Peay v. Morrison, 10 Gratt. 149; Farrar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT