Prideaux v. Plymouth Securities Co.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1935
• Parties: B. J. PRIDEAUX, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ASSIGNEE OF WILLIAM M. RIDEOUT, DOING BUSINESS AS MISSOURI SALES COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. PLYMOUTH SECURITIES COMPANY, A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION IN THE NATURE OF A COMMON LAW TRUST, AND WALTER E. HARREL, C. C. MILES, T. R. AYARS AND O. B. BOTTORF, TRUSTEES OF PLYMOUTH SECURITIES COMPANY, A COMMON LAW TRUST, APPELLANTS
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

84 S.W.2d 166

231 Mo.App. 1060

B. J. PRIDEAUX, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ASSIGNEE OF WILLIAM M. RIDEOUT, DOING BUSINESS AS MISSOURI SALES COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. PLYMOUTH SECURITIES COMPANY, A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION IN THE NATURE OF A COMMON LAW TRUST, AND WALTER E. HARREL, C. C. MILES, T. R. AYARS AND O. B. BOTTORF, TRUSTEES OF PLYMOUTH SECURITIES COMPANY, A COMMON LAW TRUST, APPELLANTS

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

July 2, 1935

Opinion Modified; Respondent's Motion for Rehearing Overruled July 16, 1935.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.--Hon William H. Killoren, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Stout & Spencer for appellants.

(1) The Court erred in not directing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, as the plaintiff testified he had received all commissions due him except commissions on unpaid portions of sales. Dougherty v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. of N Y., 226 Mo.App. 570, 44 S.W.2d l. c. 216; Handleman v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 223 Mo.App. 758, 18 S.W.2d l. c. 534; Koons v. St. Louis Car Co., 203 Mo. 227, 101 S.W. 49, l. c. 57. (2) No verbal agreement to this effect was pleaded, the petition declaring upon a written contract. Koons v. St. Louis Car Co., 203 Mo. 227, 101 S.W. 49, l. c. 57; Taussig v. Southern M. & L. Company, 101 S.W. 606, 124 Mo.App. 209. (3) There was no evidence of any verbal agreement to this effect. The construction of the written contract was for the Court and not for the jury. Ford v. Dyer, 49 S.W., l. c. 1094; Cowell v. Employers Indemnity Corporation, 34 S.W.2d, l. c. 710, 326 Mo. 1103; 13 C. J., page 783, Sec. 996; Cope v. Central States Life Insurance Co., 56 S.W.2d l. c. 606. (4) The contract is clear and unambiguous; however, if the contract should be held to be susceptible to two constructions, that most favorable to defendant should be adopted, as plaintiff drew the contract. Burrus v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 40 S.W.2d, l. c. 495; Wendorff v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co., 1 S.W.2d l. c. 101. (5) The contract in evidence is one in which four parties are jointly interested as joint obligees and hence all four must be parties to the action. Peters v. McDonough, 37 S.W.2d 530; Welch-Sanders v. Mullins, 31 S.W.2d, l. c. 91; R. S. Mo. 1929, Sec. 702. (6) There is no pleading or evidence of any modification of the contract and, hence, the recovery must be on the original contract and there can be no recovery on any modified contract. Taussig v. Southern Mill & Land Co., 101 S.W., l. c. 606, 124 Mo.App. 209. (7) The Court erred in refusing to give to the jury defendants' instructions. Burrus v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 40 S.W.2d, l. c. 495. (8) The Court erred in not referring the case to a referee to hear the testimony as the case involved the examination of a long account. R. S. Mo. 1929, Sec. 976; Rawleigh v. Woodward, 230 S.W. 647; Small v. Hatch, 151 Mo. 200, 52 S.W. 190; Bank of Oak Ridge v. Duncan, 40 S.W.2d, l. c. 658; Fine Art Picture Corporation v. Karzin, 29 S.W.2d, l. c. 172-4; Wentzville Tobacco Co. v. Walker, 123 Mo. 662; Third National Bank v. Owen, 101 Mo. 558; Record, Abstract, pages 12, 13, 14.

Edwin C. Luedde for respondent.

(1) A reference was properly denied. The pleadings, by which the matter is determined, showed that the issues were not concerning items of the account, but concerning the right to commissions on canceled contracts generally. A compulsory reference encroaches on the constitutional right of trial by jury and should not occur unless the cause comes within the spirit as well as the letter of the statute. National Bank of Commerce v. Laughlin, 305 Mo. 8, 264 S.W. 706; Smith v. Ohio Millers M. F. Ins. Co., 320 Mo. 146, 6 S.W.2d 920; Browning v. North Mo. Cent. Ry. Co., 224 S.W. 748, 284 Mo. 439; Roth Tool Co. v. Champ Spring Co., 146 Mo.App. 1, 31, 32, 123 S.W. 513; Couser v. Thayer, 204 S.W. 27; Barger v. Beach, 142 Mo.App. 389, 127 S.W. 120; Kenneth Inv. Co. v. Nat. Bank of the Republic, 96 Mo.App. 125, 70 S.W. 173; Martin v. Hall, 26 Mo. 386; Creve Coeur Lake Ice Co. v. Tamm, 138 Mo. 385, 39 S.W. 791; Thornton v. Life Assn., 7 Mo.App. 544; Elks Inv. Co. v. Jones, 187 S.W. 71 (Mo. Sup.); Baker v. Baker, 71 S.W.2d 757. (2) The provision of the contract with regard to a certain sales quota for six months and yearly periods was an independent covenant, the breach of which might give defendants a right to counterclaim on that ground, but would not bar recovery by plaintiff in this action. Butler, Admr., v. Manny, 52 Mo. 497; Turner v. Mellier, 59 Mo. 526; St. Louis Steam H. & V. Co. v. Bissell, 41 Mo.App. 426; Sawyer v. Christian, 40 Mo.App. 295; O'Neill v. Webb, 78 Mo.App. 1; Mo. & Ill. Coal Co. v. Willis Coal & Min. Co., 235 S.W. 119; Gratz v. Highland Scenic Ry. Co., 165 Mo. 211, 65 S.W. 223; Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124; 13 C. J. 569, 614, Contracts, Secs. 539, 664. A case cannot be determined on appeal on a theory not urged at the trial. Estes v. Nell, 163 Mo. 387, 63 S.W. 724; Cook v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 71 S.W.2d 73; Bibbs v. Fidelity Health & Acc. Co., 71 S.W.2d 764; Goldman v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 72 S.W.2d 866; Dutton v. City of Independence, 50 S.W.2d 161; St. Louis, K. C. & Col. Ry. Co. v. North, 31 Mo.App. 351. The interest of the joint promisees was severed, and, being transferred to plaintiff, the suit was properly brought by him alone. Dement v. McNail, 281 S.W. 128, also 4 S.W.2d 831; 47 C. J. 61, 62, 64, Parties, Secs. 124, 130; The-berath v. Celluloid Mfg. Co., 3 F. 143; Cummings v. Blaisdell, 43 Vt. 382; Ambler v. Brady, 6 Vt. 119; Martin v. Reininger, 74 W.Va. 439, 82 S.E. 221; Pettit v. Forsythe, 15 Cal.App. 149, 113 P. 892. The undertaking of the plaintiff and his joint obligees was a joint adventure, rather than partnership. Denny v. Guyton, 327 Mo. 1030, 40 S.W.2d 562; Neville v. D'Oench, 327 Mo. 34, 34 S.W.2d 491; Hobart-Lee Tie Co. v. Grodsky, 329 Mo. 706, 46 S.W.2d 859; Knapp v. Hanley, 108 Mo.App. 353, 83 S.W. 1005; 33 C. J. 841, Joint Adventures, Sec. 1. The allegation in the petition was not a conclusion. But even if it was no demurrer or motion to strike or to make more definite and certain filed against such allegation. Mann v. Farmers Exch. Bank, 50 S.W.2d 146; State v. Miller, 57 S.W.2d 1080; Williams v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 7 S.W.2d 392; Doyle v. Scott's Cleaning Co., 224 Mo.App. 1168, 31 S.W.2d 242; State ex inf. Major v. Ark. Lbr. Co., 260 Mo. 212, 283, 169 S.W. 145. An assignee may sue in his own name. Milliken Co. v. Albers Co., 244 Mo. 38, 147 S.W. 1065; Guerney v. Moore, 131 Mo. 650, 32 S.W. 1132. If a defect of parties plaintiff appears on the face of the petition, it must be raised by demurrer; otherwise, by answer. If not so raised, it is waived. The objection comes too late at the trial, and certainly too late on appeal. Wilson & Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 300 Mo. 1, 38, 39, 254 S.W. 266; Thompson v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 80 Mo. 521; Hammons v. Renfrow, 84 Mo. 332, l. c. 345; Bryant v. Lazarus, 35 Mo. 606; Utz v. Dormann, 39 S.W.2d 1053; Eastman v. U. R. Co., 220 S.W. 508; Vogel v. Bushnell, 203 Mo.App. 623, 221 S.W. 819; Belt v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry., 190 S.W. 1002; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 262 S.W. 357; Wilkerson v. St. Louis S.W. Ry., 224 S.W. 72. (3) The proper construction of the provisions of the contract for the payment of commissions for purchases of lots secured is that the commission was earned as soon as a sale contract was obtained by plaintiff or his assignors or salesmen and accepted by defendant. Am. Law Book Co. v. Bryson, 150 S.C. 36, 147 S.E. 650; Love v. Owens, 31 Mo.App. 501. The first, not the later clauses, governs in case of a conflict in clauses of a contract. Drucker v. Western Indemnity Co., 204 Mo.App. 516, 223 S.W. 989; Morrow v. Assurance Co., 143 F. 750; Blackman v. Ins. Co., 117 Tenn. 578, 103 S.W. 784; Ins. Co. v. Wilkin, 95 Wis. 111, 69 N.W. 354; Vicker v. Commercial Co., 67 N.J. L. 665, 52 A. 467; Caine v. Physicians Indemnity Co., 45 S.W.2d 904 (Mo. App.); 13 C. J. 536, Contracts, Sec. 497. It was not drawn by the one side or the other alone. Hence the rule of construing doubtful clauses against the one drafting the agreement is not applicable. Commercial Elec. Sup. Co. v. Mo. Comm. Co., 166 Mo.App. 332, 148 S.W. 995; Kreger Glass Co. v. Kreger, 49 S.W.2d 260, l. c. 264; McFarland v. Gillioz, 37 S.W.2d 911, l. c. 916. The commission is earned when the purchaser is accepted by the seller, and if it is subsequently canceled the agent or broker is, nevertheless, entitled to his commission. Elmer v. Rubenstein, 24 S.W.2d 677; Spears v. Carter, 24 S.W.2d 717; Mechem, Agency (3 Ed.), Sec. 408; Gelatt v. Ridge, 117 Mo. 553, 23 S.W. 882; Wolf Shirt Co. v. Sacks, 184 Mo.App. 157, 168 S.W. 641; Ann. Cas. 1915B, Note p. 169; Bailey v. Hercules, 22 S.W.2d 855; 2 C. J. 773 (Agency); Brown v. Luchsinger, 208 Mo.App. 492, 236 S.W. 1099; Duncan v. Turner, 171 Mo.App. 661, 154 S.W. 816; Christensen v. Wooley, 41 Mo.App. 53; Hayden v. Crillo, 35 Mo.App. 647; Nesbitt v. Helser, 49 Mo. 383; Bird v. Rowell, 180 Mo.App. 421, 167 S.W. 1172; Robertson v. Kochtitzky, 217 S.W. 543; Hammack v. Friend, 180 Mo.App. 472, 166 S.W. 647; Bardett v. Parish, 185 Mo.App. 605, 172 S.W. 620. Under several decisions the plaintiff is entitled to commissions on unpaid portions of customers' contracts which have been canceled. It in nowise affects the right to recover them if the installments are not all paid by the customer or if his purchase contract is canceled. Reed v. Union Life Ins. Co., 21 Utah 295; Republic Foreign Products Co. v. Southwark Foundry & Mach. Co., 269 Pa. 522, 113 A. 74; Vining v. Mo.-La. Oil Co., 312 Mo. 30, 278 S.W. 747.

HOSTETTER, P. J. Becker and McCullen, JJ., concur.

OPINION

HOSTETTER, P. J.

This suit was...