Nat. Plumbing Supply Co. v. Torretti et al.

• Citation: 175 S.W.2d 947
• Decision Date: 07 December 1943
• Docket Number: No. 26390.,26390.
• Parties: NATIONAL PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF, v. CAESAR TORRETTI, DOING BUSINESS AS THE SOUTHWEST HEATING COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ALCO INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, CARR-TROMBLEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

175 S.W.2d 947

NATIONAL PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF, v. CAESAR TORRETTI, DOING BUSINESS AS THE SOUTHWEST HEATING COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ALCO INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, CARR-TROMBLEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT.

No. 26390.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Opinion filed December 7, 1943.

Respondents' motion for a rehearing denied December 28, 1943.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis. — Hon. Peter T. Barrett, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

Harry S. Gleick for appellant.

(1) One who is the president, general manager, and sole stockholder of a corporation is the alter ego of the corporation; his acts and admissions are the acts and admissions of the corporation, and conclusive upon it. Huse v. St. Louis Belting & Supply Co., 121 Mo. App. 89, 97 S.W. 990; Sparks v. Despatch Transfer Co., 104 Mo. 531, 15 S.W. 417; Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 39 S.W. 486, 40 S.W. 353, 37 L.R.A. 682, 61 Am. St. R. 436; Morton v. Manchester Investment Co., 181 Mo. App. 364, 168 S.W. 904; Holland Land & Loan Co. v. Holland (Mo. App.), 274 S.W. 951 [transferred from appellate court, 317 Mo. 951, 298 S.W. 39] Kaufman v. Baden Ice Cream Mfrs. (Mo. App.), 7 S.W. (2d) 298; Costigan v. Michael Transp. Co., 38 Mo. App. 219; Moore v. Gaus & Sons Mfg. Co., 113 Mo. 98, 20 S.W. 975; Porterfield v. American Surety Co., 201 Mo. App. 8, 210 S.W. 119; Henderson Woolen Mills v. Edwards, 84 Mo. App. 448; Whittington v. Westport Hotel Operating Co., 326 Mo. 1117, 33 S.W. (2d) 963; Kelso v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 227 Mo. App. 184, 51 S.W. (2d) 203; Bacon Piano Co. v. Wilson (Mo. App.), 62 S.W. (2d) 774; Farm & Home Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Stubbs, 231 Mo. App. 87, 98 S.W. (2d) 320; Stevens Davis Co. v. Sid's Petroleum Corp. (Mo. App.), 157 S.W. (2d) 246; Buffalo Trust Co. v. Producers' Exchange, 224 Mo. App. 199, 23 S.W. (2d) 644; Robinson v. Moark-Nemo Consol. Mining Co., 178 Mo. App. 531, 163 S.W. 885; James H. Forbes Tea & Coffee Company v. Baltimore Bank, 345 Mo. 1151, 139 S.W. (2d) 507; Turner v. Browne (Mo.), 173 S.W. (2d) 868, 876. (2) An agent is one who acts for and is controlled by his principal. An independent contractor is not subject to such control. Baker v. Fenley, 233 Mo. App. 998, 128 S.W. (2d) 295; Peters v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 150 Mo. App. 721, 131 S.W. 917 [opinion adopted 160 Mo. App. 629, 140 S.W. 1197]; Noren v. American School of Osteopathy (Mo. App.), 2 S.W. (2d) 215 [affirming judgment on rehearing 298 S.W. 1061, and certiorari to quash opinion quashed (Mo. Sup.), 18 S.W. (2d) 487]; Lajoie v. Rossi, 225 Mo. App. 651, 37 S.W. (2d) 684; De Vall v. Mrs. Stover's Bungalow Candies Co. (Mo. App.), 172 S.W. (2d) 956; Hartwig-Dischinger R. Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Com'n, 168 S.W. (2d) 78. (3) The declarations of an agent dum fervet opus are not only admissible against, but, if not contradicted, are binding upon, the principal. 2 Jones' Commentaries on Evidence (2 Ed. 1926), sec. 944; Hoene v. Gocke Real Estate Co., 230 Mo. App. 175, 91 S.W. (2d) 137; Northrup v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 435; Hill Bros. v. Bank of Seneca, 100 Mo. App. 230, 73 S.W. 307; Klaber v. Fidelity Bldg. Co. (Mo. App.), 19 S.W. (2d) 758; Chapman v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 144 S.W. (2d) 834; Haubelt Bros. v. Mill Co., 77 Mo. App. 672; 1 Mechem on Agency (2 Ed.), p. 186. (4) Agency may be inferred from the conduct of the parties, independent of express agreement. Kaden v. Moon Motor Car Co. (Mo. App.), 26 S.W. (2d) 812; Lorie v. Lumberman's Mut. Cas. Co. (Mo. App.), 8 S.W. (2d) 81; Thimmig v. General Talking Pictures Corp. (Mo. App.), 85 S.W. (2d) 208; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Farmers Bank, 230 Mo. App. 1132, 91 S.W. (2d) 122; Klaber v. Fidelity Building Co. (Mo. App.), 19 S.W. (2d) 758; McCloud v. Western Union Tel. Co., 170 Mo. App. 624, 157 S.W. 101; Wyse v. Miller (Mo. App.), 2 S.W. (2d) 806; Large v. Frick Co., 215 Mo. App. 232, 256 S.W. 90; State v. Edwards, 345 Mo. 929, 137 S.W. (2d) 447; State ex rel. v. Doder (Mo. App.), 121 S.W. (2d) 263; Platte Valley Drainage Dist. v. National Surety Co., 221 Mo. App. 898, 295 S.W. 1083; State ex rel. v. Public Service Comm., 337 Mo. 809, 85 S.W. (2d) 890 [cert. den. 296 U.S. 657, 56 S. Ct. 382, 80 L. Ed. 468]; Dovino v. General American Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 127 S.W. (2d) 732; Smith v. St. Louis Public Service Co. (Mo. App.), 84 S.W. (2d) 161; Bennett v. Potashnick, 214 Mo. App. 507, 257 S.W. 836; Cummings v. Hurd, 49 Mo. App. 139; Mitchell v. Samford, 149 Mo. App. 72, 139 S.W. 99; Smith v. Pullman Co., 138 Mo. App. 238, 119 S.W. 1072; 2 Jones' "Commentaries on Evidence" (2 Ed. 1926), sec. 945, p. 1748; Werth v. Ollis, 61 Mo. App. 401; Gillis v. Singer (Mo. App.), 86 S.W. (2d) 352. (5) An admission against interest relevant to issues on trial is properly admissible in evidence, and the fact that it contains conclusions does not render it inadmissible. 4 Wigmore on Evidence (3 Ed.), pp. 3, 12, 20; Vol. VI, p. 199; Brookfield v. Drury College, 139 Mo. App. 339, 123 S.W. 86; Kirkpatrick v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 211 Mo. 68, 109 S.W. 682. (6) Failure of a party to produce evidence within his control raises a strong presumption that such evidence would have been damaging to him. Russell v. Franks, 343 Mo. 159, 120 S.W. (2d) 37; Cuthbert v. Holmes (Mo.), 14 S.W. (2d) 444; National Battery Co. v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 226 Mo. App. 351, 41 S.W. (2d) 599; Arnest v. Messerly (Mo. App.), 17 S.W. (2d) 670; Cooper v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 94 S.W. (2d) 1070; Baker v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 327 Mo. 986, 39 S.W. (2d) 535; Huskey v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 94 S.W. (2d) 1075; Parsons v. Missouri Sav. Bank & Tr. Co. (Mo. App.), 114 S.W. (2d) 203; Guthrie v. Wenzlick Real Estate Co. (Mo. App.), 54 S.W. (2d) 801; Davenport v. King Electric Co., 242 Mo. 111, 145 S.W. 454. (a) Where a party fails to produce evidence within his control respecting facts, slight evidence will be sufficient to establish those facts. Smith v. Ohio Millers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Mo.), 6 S.W. (2d) 920. (7) A contract made on behalf of a principal but in the name of an agent, is nevertheless the contract of the principal, and parol evidence is admissible to show that a book account entered as an account of the agent was intended by the parties as a charge against the principal. Forgey v. Gilbirds, 262 Mo. 44, 170 S.W. 1135; Ferris v. Thaw, 72 Mo. 446; Miner v. Sever (Mo. App.), 255 S.W. 578; Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 39 S.W. 486, 40 S.W. 353, 37 L.R.A. 682, 61 Am. St. R. 436; Serat v. Winter, 218 Mo. App. 60, 262 S.W. 66; 3 Corpus Juris Secundum, pp. 162, 165; Huff v. Doerr, 206 Mo. App. 563, 228 S.W. 849; Young v. Emmke, 210 Mo. App. 56, 242 S.W. 161; United States Wood Preserving Co. v. Granite B. Pav. Co. (Mo. App.), 245 S.W. 349; Briggs v. Munchon, 56 Mo. 467; Sparks v. Despatch Transp. Co., 104 Mo. 531, 15 S.W. 417, 12 L.R.A. 714, 24 Am. St. R. 351; Excelsior Press Brick Co. v. Reinschmidt (Mo. App.), 209 S.W. 546; Baptiste Tent & Awning Co. v. Uhri (Mo. App.), 129 S.W. (2d) 9; Higgins v. Dellinger, 22 Mo. 397; American Fruit Growers v. St. L.B. & M. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 261 S.W. 949 [cert. den. 266 U.S. 611, 69 L. Ed. 467, 45 S. Ct. 94]; City of St. Louis ex rel. v. Southern Surety Co., 333 Mo. 180, 62 S.W. (2d) 432; Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422, 45 S.W. 300; Weber v. Collins, 139 Mo. 501, 41 S.W. 249; Leisse v. Schwartz, 6 Mo. App. 413; Schmitt v. Wright, 6 Mo. App. 601; Kuenzel v. Stevens, 155 Mo. 280, 56 S.W. 1076; Burgwald v. Weippert, 49 Mo. 60; Henry Evers Mfg. Co. v. Grant (Mo. App.), 284 S.W. 525; Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Winn Contracting Co. (Mo. App.), 219 S.W. 681; Winslow Bros. Co. v. McCully Stone Mason Co., 169 Mo. 236, 69 S.W. 304; 4 Jones' Commentaries on Evidence (2 Ed., 1926), sec. 1557, p. 2847; 22 Corpus Juris, p. 880; Ridge v. Mercantile L. & T. Co., 56 Mo. App. 155. (8) Evidence competent for any purpose may not be excluded on the ground that it is incompetent for other purposes. Courter v. Chase & Sons Mere. Co. (Mo. App.), 299 S.W. 622; Thompson v. City of Lamar, 322 Mo. 514, 17 S.W. (2d) 960; Neal v. Caldwell, 326 Mo. 1146, 34 S.W. (2d) 104. (9) The provisions of the Mechanics' Lien Act placing upon a subcontractor heavier burdens than upon an original contractor, were enacted for the benefit only of the owner of the property. Where a lienable right can be established against the owner, those in privity of title with the owner are bound. 4 Wigmore on Evidence (3 Ed.), pp. 134, 150; McCray Lumber Co. v. Standard Const. Co. (Mo. App.), 285 S.W. 104; Kurtz, Inc., v. Field (Mo. App.), 14 S.W. (2d) 9; McLundie & Co. v. Mount, 145 Mo. App. 660, 123 S.W. 966; Bruner Granitoid Co. v. Klein, 100 Mo. App. 289, 73 S.W. 313; Kansas City Pump Co. v. Vrooman, 174 Mo. App. 63, 160 S.W. 48. (10) The Mechanics' Lien Law should be construed as favorably as its terms will legitimately permit, to afford effective security to mechanics and materialmen. Roy F. Stamm Electric Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. (Mo. App.), 165 S.W. (2d) 437, aff'd, 171 S.W. (2d) 580. (11) A mechanics' lien is superior to a construction or building loan deed of trust, and is superior to any deed of trust when the construction first started before such deed of trust was recorded. Magidson v. Stern, 235 Mo. App. 1039, 148 S.W. (2d) 144; Jefferson County Lumber Co. v. Robinson (Mo. App.), 121 S.W. (2d) 209; Schroeter Bros. Hdw. Co. v. Croatian, etc., Ass'n, 332 Mo. 440, 58 S.W. (2d) 995; Langdon v. Kleeman, 278 Mo. 236, 211 S.W. 877. (12) Where a witness instead of answering an interrogation, frames his reply so as to constitute a conclusion of his own, and one not responsive to the question, the answer should be stricken. State v. Dengel (Mo.), 248 S.W. 603; Foster v. Modern Woodmen of America, 235 Mo. App. 386, 138 S.W. (2d) 18; Fesler v. Hunter (Mo. App.), ...