Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 20 December 1888
• Citation: 32 Mo.App. 657
• Parties: NICHOLS, SHEPARD & Co., Appellant, v. E. W. JONES, Respondent.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

32 Mo.App. 657

NICHOLS, SHEPARD & Co., Appellant, v. E. W. JONES, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City.

December 20, 1888

Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court. --HON. RICHARD FIELD, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Statement of case by the court.

This was an action by the plaintiff, a corporation under the laws of Michigan, upon a promissory note executed by defendant together with Ellis J. Pursell and R. R. Henderson. The defense out of which grew the questions presented to us for determination was, that the note in suit was, together with two other notes, given for a threshing-machine sold by plaintiff to Pursell and Henderson, and that the defendant had executed the notes as surety for the said Pursell and Henderson; that subsequent to the execution of the notes, the plaintiff, through its duly authorized agent, entered into a new agreement with the defendant's principals by which the machine was returned to the plaintiff and the said principals released from liability on said notes; and that thereby the defendant was discharged from all liability as said surety.

Long prior to the institution of the present action the plaintiff had brought a suit on the note sued on in this case against all the parties thereto before a justice of the peace. The attorney of the plaintiff in the suit before the justice of the peace, wrote the latter the following letter:

" Sedalia, Mo., September 27th, 1879.

C. W Goodrich, J. P.,Houstonia, Mo.:

Dear Sir:--It will be impossible for me to come up on Monday to attend to case of Nichols, Shepard & Co. vs. Henderson, Pursell and Jones, on account of other business and I do not think there is any necessity of my coming. The note you can place in evidence for me, and then if Mr Henderson does not show conclusive to you that he never executed the note, or that the same has been paid, and presents receipts showing payments of same, you will be compelled to render judgment in favor of plaintiff.

We have agreed upon a statement of facts. Mr. G. P. B. Jackson attorney for Pursell, and myself as to Pursell, and you can render judgment in favor of Pursell as to debt and costs, and then find the amount due on the note against Henderson and Jones, and render judgment against them. Mr. Jones will instruct you about what he wants done after judgment is rendered.

R. C SNEED,

Attorney for plaintiff."

Upon the letter was the following endorsement:

" We approve the above and agree that under the enclosed statement judgment be for the defendant Pursell; as to the other defendants we have no authority, and do not represent them.

HEARD & JACKSON."

The enclosed statement or agreement of facts referred to in the endorsement was as follows:

" Nichols, Shepard & Co., Plaintiff, )

vs. )

Henderson et al., Defendants. )

In Justice Court of C. W. Goodrich, J. P., Houstonia Township, Pettis County, Mo.

It is hereby agreed that J. R. Stewart, acting as the agent of plaintiff with power in that behalf, heretofore entered into an agreement for plaintiff with E. J. Pursell, one of the defendants, to the following effect:

That as Pursell and Henderson had bought a threshing-machine from Stewart, as the agent of the plaintiff, and given three notes therefor, one of which is the note here in suit, and said notes not being paid, and said Stewart, as agent aforesaid, desiring to make different arrangements and to take other security, which he could not obtain while Pursell remained a part owner, it was agreed that Pursell should return or deliver back to Stewart, as said agent, the threshingmachine, and allow Stewart to make a new sale of it, and release Pursell from any liability on any of said notes; that in pursuance of said agreement, Pursell did deliver back said machine to Stewart as said agent, and Stewart did make a new sale thereof, and Pursell was then and thereby released from liability on said notes.

This agreement of facts shall be used on the trial of this cause, and shall have the same effect as though the said J. R. Stewart was present on the trial of this cause, and was sworn as a witness and testified thereto.

R. C. SNEED,

Sept. 27, 1879. Attorney for plaintiff.

HEARD & JACKSON,

Attorneys for Pursell."

It seems that the defendant had requested the institution of the suit before the justice of the peace; but upon examining the foregoing letter and statement of facts which the justice had filed in the case, he concluded, after consultation with counsel, that they gave him a valid defense and that he would set it up. Plaintiff's attorney learning that such was the defendant's intention withdrew said papers and dismissed the case.

The court below, against the plaintiff's objections, permitted the defendant to introduce the said letter, with its indorsement and the statement of facts, in evidence.

At the institution of this suit, the plaintiff's agent Stewart was dead. The defendant was permitted against the plaintiff's objections, to read in evidence two depositions of Pursell, one of the defendant's principals in the note, tending to prove the agreement alleged in the answer between the said principals in the note and the plaintiff, through its agent Stewart.

The court gave for the defendant, among others, the following instruction:

" It is admitted for the purpose of this case that J. R. Stewart was the agent of plaintiff in selling the machine and taking the three notes and chattel mortgage for the same, and it devolves on plaintiff to show that his said agency thereafter ceased, and if plaintiff has not done so, then plaintiff is bound by his acts as detailed in the evidence."

G. W. Barnett and R. C. Sneed, for the appellant.

(1) Ellis J. Pursell was not a competent witness to prove the contract releasing him from the note when J. R. Stewart, the agent of the plaintiff corporation, with whom the contract of release was alleged to have been made, was dead, because Ellis J. Pursell was a party to such contract, and when Stewart, the contracting agent of the corporation, was dead, Pursell, the other party to the contract, cannot testify. Therefore, the court erred in admitting the two depositions of Ellis J. Pursell. Williams v. Edwards, 94 Mo. 447; Coughlin v. Hansler, 50 Mo. 126. (2) The court erred in admitting the letter and stipulation offered by defendant, alleged to have been filed before the justice of the peace at Houstonia, for the reasons: Said papers are not sufficiently proved to be copies; the stipulation was simply an agreement made by the attorneys in the case before the justice of the peace, as to what Stewart's testimony would be, and made simply for the purposes of that case and was withdrawn without being used. Such statement was not sworn to and cannot be regarded as the testimony of Stewart in a former trial so as to authorize it to be used in this case, on the ground that Stewart was dead. (3) The court erred in giving instruction number five in behalf of defendant against plaintiff's objection, because it announces in effect the doctrine that if Stewart was the agent to sell the machine and take the note, the presumption is that he had the authority to make a contract releasing the maker from the payment of the note, unless the plaintiff had shown the authority to sell had ceased. This instruction is in the face of the law. (4) The other instructions for defendant ignore vital issues; change the burden of proof from where the law places it; and are not supported by the evidence. (5) The court erred in refusing the instruction asked by plaintiff in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, since there was no evidence to show the agent's authority to make the alleged release.

E. J. Smith, for the respondent.

(1) Pursell was a competent witness. He is not a party to the suit and does not testify in his own favor. His deposition was on file before Stewart's death. Amonett v Montague, 63 Mo. 201, 75 Mo. 43; Looker v. Davis, 47 Mo. 140; Angel v. Hester, 64 Mo. 142; State ex rel. v. Haff, 63 Mo. 288; Schweckerath v. Cooksey, 53 Mo. 83; Meier v. Thieman, 15 Mo.App. 307; Fyke v. Lewis, 15 Mo.App. 588; Pritchett v. Reynolds, 21 Mo.App. 674. The case of Williams v. Edwards, 94 Mo. 447, referred to in plaintiff's brief is not in point; that was where the party to the suit was held incompetent, the agent of the corporation with whom he contracted being dead. Here no objection is made to defendant as witness; besides his testimony is immaterial. (2) It was not error to admit in evidence the copies of the letter and stipulation filed in the suit on this same note in the justice court. Said papers were fully proved to be copies. It is seen by the testimony taken that defendant testifies they are copies of the originals which he saw in the justice court. The justice of the peace certified that they were true copies, and R. C. Sneed, attorney and witness for plaintiff, and who signed them for plaintiff, testified he drew and filed and then withdrew the originals, and that " probably these are copies." There can be no objection to these on the ground that they are not sworn to. They are in the nature of admissions by plaintiff and take the place also of the deposition of J. R. Stewart, who was plaintiff's agent. This also avoids the objection to Pursell, if there was any, as a witness. Because though Stewart is dead this serves as his deposition. Therefore Pursell may testify to the same transaction about which Stewart did. It is seen this stipulation is to have the same effect as though Stewart was present as a witness and being sworn, testified to the facts therein contained. (3) There was no error in...