Monmouth College v. Dockery
Decision Date | 09 February 1912 |
Citation | 145 S.W. 785 |
Parties | MONMOUTH COLLEGE v. DOCKERY. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Adair County; Nat M. Shelton, Judge.
Action by Monmouth College against Thomas J. Dockery. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
M. D. Campbell, S. H. Ellison, and Gage, Ladd & Small, for appellant. Higbee & Mills, for respondent.
Plaintiff, an Illinois corporation, sues to recover $12,000, with interest, which, it alleges, was obtained from it by defendant through fraud and deceit. It is not disputed that the money was obtained from the plaintiff by fraud and deceit; and it is not charged that defendant, Dockery, was, in person, guilty of any of the fraud or deceit that the practiced in the transaction, or that he did, in person, obtain any of the money in question. But defendant was a member of a business firm or copartnership, doing business under the name and style of Dockery & Hilbert, and the fraud was practiced in the name of the firm by Hilbert, defendant's partner; and the money was obtained by Hilbert in the name of the firm, without the knowledge of defendant, Dockery. It is therefore a case in which one of two innocent parties must suffer, and the question is: Must the defendant suffer for the wrongdoing of his partner, or must the plaintiff suffer from the wrong-doing of defendant's partner?
There is no dispute about the main facts in the case. At the time of this transaction and for several years prior, defendant and Edwin L. Hilbert were partners in trade under the style and firm name of Dockery & Hilbert. Their business was dealing in real estate, making and negotiating loans on real estate, etc. They did the largest business of that kind that was done in Kirksville, Mo., where they lived. Their personal and commercial reputation was of the very best; even Hilbert, for integrity and financial strength, was, at that time, and for two or three years thereafter, highly esteemed among business people in Kirksville.
They also conducted a title abstract business in the name of the Dockery & Hilbert Abstract Company, a corporation in which they owned practically all the stock, and of which defendant, Dockery, was president and Hilbert was secretary. The business of that concern was conducted in the office of the firm. In the name of that corporation, abstracts and certificates of title were issued and used by the firm in their business of dealing in real estate and making loans.
They also allowed an insurance business to be conducted in their office, and in the name of their firm, by a young lady, who was an employé of theirs; and the bank account, relating to that business, was kept in the firm name, the deposits and checks being made by Hilbert in the firm name; but the business was owned by the employé, who conducted it, and they had no interest in it.
They advertised their business as real estate, loans, insurance, law, and abstracts. The plaintiff began having money-lending transactions with the firm of Dockery & Hilbert as early as 1899, and had made several loans through them before the loan in question in this case. By these previous transactions, the plaintiff's confidence in the firm seems to have been so well established that it made them its exclusive agents for placing loans in Adair and other counties, as the following letter from the firm to the then treasurer of the college indicates:
The firm really enjoyed a high reputation; it had the confidence of the community, and, so far as this records shows, its business transactions, until the occurrence of this transaction, were of a character to inspire confidence. For use in their loan-negotiable business they prepared a printed form of an application, to be signed and sworn to by the applicant for the loan, which application became the basis of the negotiations. This form was so drawn that it showed the utmost care to disclose all the facts that a cautious lender would desire to know. In the usual course of business, this application, when signed and sworn to by the applicant, would be shown to the prospective lender, and, if the loan was made, would be delivered to him with the other papers. This form of application was used in the loan which is the subject of this suit, and, although it is long, we deem it of sufficient significance to copy it in full:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
College v. Dockery
... 145 S.W. 785 241 Mo. 522 MONMOUTH COLLEGE, Appellant, v. THOMAS J. DOCKERY Supreme Court of Missouri March 28, 1912 ... Appeal ... from Adair Circuit Court. -- Hon. Nat M. Shelton, Judge ... ... Reversed and remanded (with directions) ... Campbell & Ellison, ... ...
-
State ex rel. v. Fid. & Dep. Co. et al.
...Mo., 1929 (sec. 414, R.S. 1919). (13) Limitations. Sec. 861, R.S. Mo., 1929; Steffen v. Stahl, 273 S.W. 118, 121; Monmouth College v. Dockery, 241 Mo. 522, 145 S.W. 785, 793. (14) Laches. Stevenson v. Smith, 189 Mo. 447, 88 S.W. 86, 92; Greenup v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Ky.)......
-
State ex rel. Pontiac Realty Co. v. Nangle
...992, 149 S.W.2d 851, 853; Denny v. Guyton, 327 Mo. 1030, 40 S.W.2d 562; Thompson v. Lyons, 281 Mo. 430, 220 S.W. 942; Monmouth College v. Dockery, 241 Mo. 522, 145 S.W. 785; Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 531; Briece v. Bosso, Mo.App., 158 S.W.2d 463. Plaintiff says these cases hold that, when f......
-
Womack v. Callaway County
...Fadler et al. v. Gabbert et al., 333 Mo. 851, 63 S.W.2d 121) or unless the plaintiff waives the defective pleading. Monmouth College v. Dockery, 241 Mo. 522, 145 S.W. 785. The italicized portion of his petition in which he alleges the court refused his request to inspect the bond is the onl......