Priest v. Garnett

• Decision Date: 29 January 1917
• Docket Number: No. 12288.,12288.
• Parties: PRIEST v. GARNETT et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

191 S.W. 1048

PRIEST v. GARNETT et al.

No. 12288.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 29, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by George Priest against Ruby B. Garnett and others. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Joseph Johnson and Hughes & Whitsett, all of Kansas City, for appellant. Lathrop, Morrow, Fox & Moore, of Kansas City, for respondents.

BLAND, J.

In the first count of plaintiff's petition, he sought to replevin a note and deed of trust securing the same. In the second count, he asked the court to remove defendant Garnett, the trustee in the deed of trust, and to enjoin defendants' foreclosure of it. The court, sitting as a jury, found that plaintiff was not the owner of the note, but that the same was the property of the defendant Wilson D. Wood. The court further found that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for in the second count of his petition, for that the said Wilson D. Wood was the owner of the note and, as such, authorized to have the property, secured by the deed of trust advertised and sold.

As no declarations of law or findings of fact were requested by plaintiff, we are limited in our inquiry into the testimony. We cannot weigh the evidence and determine whether or not the finding of the lower court was correct on the whole evidence; but, if an examination of the record shows there was any evidence to support the court's findings, the judgment must be affirmed.

There was testimony introduced tending to show that the plaintiff, Priest, being the payee in the note and the owner of said note and the deed of trust in controversy, indorsed the note in blank and delivered it, together with the deed of trust, to the defendant Garnett, who, in addition to being plaintiff's attorney, was looking after some of plaintiff's property in Kansas City, Mo. There was further testimony that Priest instructed Garnett to use said note for the purpose of raising money with which to complete and fix up plaintiff's said property; that Garnett, at various times, borrowed money from divers persons, giving his (Garnett's) note for the same, putting up plaintiff's note as collateral; that finally Garnett sold plaintiff's note after its maturity to the defendant Wilson D. Wood. Further testimony tended to show that Wood in buying said note acted upon the assumption that Garnett had full right to sell the same, and had no notice of any agreements or...