Quinn v. Van Raalte
Decision Date | 03 June 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 18797.,18797. |
Citation | 205 S.W. 59,276 Mo. 71 |
Parties | QUINN v. VAN RAALTE et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William T. Jones, Judge.
Action by Margaret A. Quinn against Simon Van Raalte and others. From an order granting the named defendant a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Order set aside, with directions.
Glendy B. Arnold, of St. Louis, for appellant. Stern & Haberman, Ryan & Thompson, Morton Jourdan, and Thomas M. Pierce, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an action based on section 7182, R. S. 1909, to recover for usury. It arises out of a real estate Transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants Simon Van Raalte, Otto L. Mersman, and the Excelsior Realty Company. The amount sued for, with interest is $21,000. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict against the defendant Van Raalte for $21,-000. A motion for a new trial was granted, and from that order the plaintiff appeals.
At the close of the trial the plaintiff, in obedience to a ruling of the court, elected to stand on the second count of he: petition and dismissed as to the first count. The second count is, in substance, as follows: After a formal averment as to the corporate character of the Excelsior Realty Company, it is alleged that on the 25th day of May, 1909, plaintiff borrowed $10,000 from defendants Mersman and the Excelsior Realty Company, and, as a consideration therefor, gave them her promissory note for $60,000, payable in six months after date, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum; that, far convenience, the note was made payable to Ralph W. Coale and indorsed by him without recourse, and was delivered to defendants Mersman and the Excelsior Realty Company; that on the 27th day of May, 1909, the defendants transferred said note to their codefendant Simon Van Raalte, and that said Van Raalte acquired de same with knowledge that the note was given for a loan of only $40,000; that on March 29, 1910, plaintiff paid Van Raalte the principal and interest of said note, amounting to $61,200. Judgment for $21,000, with interest, is prayed for.
The answer of the defendants Mersman and the Excelsior Realty Company is in two counts, presenting substantially the same defense. We are concerned in this review only with the second count.
It is averred that James J. Quinn, the husband of plaintiff, on or about May 1, 1909, procured an option to purchase, on or before May 31, 1909, for $140,000, a tract of land in St. Louis county, containing about acres, and known as the "Forsyth Tract," lying between the Washington University grounds and the city of Clayton; that Quinn bought this option on a speculation, and being unable to pay the balance of the purchase money, $39,000, within the time prescribed, induced the Excelsior Realty Company to buy the option from him, with the understanding and agreement that if the Excelsior Company bought the land under the option it would sell it to Quinn for the advanced consideration of $160,000, payable upon the assumption by Quinn of two deeds of trust On the land for $50,000 each, and the balance in cash or notes satisfactorily secured, payable in six months; that Quinn was given a five-day option in which to buy the land from the Excelsior Realty Company, but was not obligated to do so; that Quinn was merely given an option to buy, while the Excelsior Realty Company bound itself for five days to sell to Quinn, in the event it bought the land under his option; that the Excelsior Realty Company bought the land under the option and sold it to Quinn, and that the conveyances were effected through Ralph W. Coale, as agent of the Excelsior Realty Company; that the land belonged to Janice J. Quinn, and that certain other property on which a deed of trust was given to secure plaintiff's note also belonged to Quinn; that prior to Quinn's exercising his option to buy said land no negotiations had been had between plaintiff and the Excelsior Realty Company or Otto L. Mersman, and that she was unknown to them; that Quinn directed that the papers be prepared in the name of Margaret A. Quinn, his wife, because of a lawsuit which he said was pending against him, or was about to be brought. Defendants deny that they loaned plaintiff any money, and aver that plaintiff's note "merely evidenced money due from the maker thereof on account of the purchase price of the property."
The answer of the respondent Van Raalte to the second count of the petition is a general denial, and pleads that he was a holder in due course of plaintiff's note, and that the same was not given for a loan of money. He does not plead the defense that plaintiff's note was given for a loan, but to evidence "money due from the maker thereof on account of the purchase price of the property." None of the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest, or that there was a defect of parties plaintiff. The reply was a general denial.
The contention of the plaintiff is that her husband's connection with this entire matter was as her representative, and that the contract of purchase was obtained by him for her. The contention of the defendants is that she was not the real party in interest.
James J. Quinn, husband of the plaintiff, on the 20th day of April, 1909, entered into a written contract with the agent of the owners of the Forsyth tract whereby the latter agreed to sell and the former to purchase, said tract of land for the sum of $140,000, to be paid as follows: $40,000 in cash, $1,000 of which was paid, as earnest money and part purchase money, upon the execution of the contract of sale, and the balance, $39,000, on or before May 31, 1909, purchaser to execute second deed of trust for $50,000, maturing March 31, 1910, and assume payment of an existing first deed of trust for $50,000, maturing April 30, 1910.
After attempting to interest a number of others in this deal, Quinn, the plaintiff's husband, was introduced to Mersman by Ralph W. Coale, Coale and Mersman then having offices in the real estate office of Cornet & Zeibig. Quinn at first sought a loan of Mersman of $39,000, which the latter refused to consider. Quinn then besought Mersman to buy the land for him, and, after numerous conferences, Mersman finally agreed to do so. In his direct examination Mersman testified on this point as follows:
After making the foregoing agreement, the transaction was consummated in the following manner: On the 25th day of May, 1909, the Excelsior Realty Company, acting through Mersman, its president, delivered to Rohan, the secretary of the Title Guaranty Trust Company, a treasurer's check of the St. Louis Union Trust Company for $40,000, with instructions to pay it out in accordance with the terms of the following written receipt, to wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delametter v. The Home Ins. Co.
...53 Sup. Ct. 20; Nelson v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 112 S.W. (2d) 901; Warren v. Guidici, 330 Mo. 483, 50 S.W. (2d) 634; Quinn v. Van Raalte, 276 Mo. 71, 205 S.W. 59, 67; Hill v. Mining Co., 75 Mo. App. 643; Wertheimer-Swarts Shoe Co., 172 Mo. 135, 72 S.W. 635. (6) The court committed no erro......
-
Fowlkes v. Fleming
...v. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 277 S.W. 913. Instructions unsupported by record evidence are erroneous. Ry. Co. v. Couch (Mo.), 187 S.W. 64; Quinn v. Van Raalte, 276 Mo. 71; Baker v. McMurry Const. Co., 282 Mo. 685. (7) The verdict is not excessive. Meyers v. Wells, 273 S.W. 110; Powelson v. Ry. Co., 26......
-
Gates Hotel Co. v. Davis Real Estate Co., 29602.
...being applied to the principal debt. R.S. 1919, sec. 6495; Osborne v. Payne, 111 Mo. App. 29; Johnson v. Grayson, 230 Mo. 380; Quinn v. Van Raalte, 276 Mo. 71; Arbuthnot v. Brookfield Loan & Bldg. Assn., 98 Mo. 382; Osborne v. Fridrich, 134 Mo. App. 449; Vandergrif v. Swinney, 158 Mo. 527; ......
-
Gates Hotel Co. v. C. R. H. Davis Real Estate Co.
... ... que trust ... 39 Cyc. 296; O'Day v. Annex Realty ... Co., 236 S.W. 25; Witte v. Storm, 236 Mo. 493; ... Van Raalte v. Epstein, 202 Mo. 196; Harrison v ... Craven, 188 Mo. 610; McGee v. Newton Burial ... Park, 290 S.W. 646; Patterson v. Booth, 103 Mo ... applied to the principal debt. R. S. 1919, sec. 6495; ... Osborne v. Payne, 111 Mo.App. 29; Johnson v ... Grayson, 230 Mo. 380; Quinn v. Van Raalte, 276 ... Mo. 71; Arbuthnot v. Brookfield Loan & Bldg. Assn., ... 98 Mo. 382; Osborne v. Fridrich, 134 Mo.App. 449; ... ...