R.B. Tippett & Bro. v. Myers
Citation | 96 A. 678,127 Md. 527 |
Decision Date | 14 January 1916 |
Docket Number | 76. |
Parties | R. B. TIPPETT & BRO. v. MYERS. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; James P. Gorter, Judge.
Action by Olivia R. Myers against R. B. Tippett & Bro. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed without awarding new trial.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BURKE, THOMAS, URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE JJ.
George W. Lindsay and Eugene O'Dunne, both of Baltimore (Donald B. Creecy, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants. J Marsh Matthews and Laurie H. Riggs, both of Baltimore, for appellee.
The appellee sued the appellants in assumpsit on the common counts, and attached to the declaration there was an account as follows:
The record states that annexed to the declaration was an affidavit under the Acts of 1886, chapter 184, which with amendments is the Practice Act of Baltimore City. Section 312 et seq. of article 4 of Public Local Laws. The defendants plead, separately, the pleas of never indebted, never promised, and limitations. The plaintiff joined issue on the first and second pleas and replied to the third, alleging fraud. The defendants filed rejoinders to the replications to their pleas and issues were joined. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $800, and this appeal was taken from the judgment rendered thereon.
There are nine bills of exception presenting rulings on the evidence, and a tenth containing the rulings on the prayers. The plaintiff offered six prayers, the first and fourth of which were granted, and the others rejected. R. B. Tippett offered five, and J. E. Tippett four, separately, and they offered one jointly, which is marked defendants' sixth prayer, all of which were rejected.
We will first consider the prayers. The plaintiff's first is as follows:
"The plaintiff prays the court to instruct the jury that the partnership of the defendants, Richard B. Tippett and James E. Tippett, having been alleged in the declaration filed by the plaintiff, and not having been denied by the next succeeding pleading of the defendants, or either of them, said partnership is admitted for the purpose of this cause."
As the suit was brought under the practice act in force in Baltimore city, the prayer ought to have referred to the affidavit as well as the declaration, as the statute so requires in order to put the defendants in default in not pleading, etc., but apparently in drawing it the plaintiff had in mind the general law. Article 75, § 24, subsec. 108, of the Code of Public General Laws. The affidavits are not in the record, but if those of the defendants stated what is required by the local law, it would not have been necessary to have pleas denying the partnership. Farmers', etc., Bank v. Hunter, 97 Md. 148, 54 A. 650; Horner v. Plumley, 97 Md. 271, 54 A. 971.
But, regardless of that technical question, in our judgment the prayer was not proper under the facts of this case, notwithstanding it uses the language of the statute that "said partnership is admitted for the purpose of this cause." The attorneys for the appellee seem to be of the opinion that the prayer contained all that is required, but we do not so understand the meaning of that expression.
In Fifer v. Clearfield Coal Co., 103 Md. 1, 62 A. 1122, the suit was not brought under the local law, and the court passed on the meaning of article 75, § 24, subsec. 108, which provides that:
The written contract was then set out verbatim in the declaration, and the appellant contended that as it had not been denied by the appellee by its next succeeding pleading, it must be taken as admitted for the purpose of the action, as well as the agency of Rogers, Holloway & Co. This court said:
Then, after quoting from Banks v. McCosker, 82 Md. 525, 34 A. 539, 51 Am. St Rep. 478, at some length, the court said:
So, in this case, the fact that the defendants were partners is admitted, but that does not admit that the suit was on a partnership transaction, or that what one partner did in reference to it necessarily bound the other. The defendants could not truthfully have sworn that they knew, or had good reason to believe, such allegation of copartnership to be untrue as the Practice Act provides. The failure to deny the partnership had the effect only of relieving the appellee of proving it, to follow the language used in Fifer's Case. Surely if this court was right in that case, where the declaration expressly alleged that the written contract was entered into with the appellee by Rogers, Holloway & Co., the agents duly authorized by them to execute it, in saying that their failure to deny the execution did not admit that these parties were the agents with authority to bind them, the failure to deny the partnership could not take from these defendants the right to prove that it was not a partnership transaction. The case of Whitman et al. v. Wood, 6 Wis. 676, is quite analogous, but we need not further refer to it. The prayer as granted was misleading, even if the lower court did not intend to go as far as the appellee now contends is the result of the failure to deny the partnership; and there was error in granting it, particularly as no other prayer was granted which limited or explained its meaning.
The plaintiff's fourth prayer was also defective, if for no other reason, from the fact that it entirely omitted all reference to the $10 which the plaintiff received from James E. Tippett, which had been paid him by Mr. Yardley. It said nothing about the stock which the appellee still holds, and which so far as the record shows may still have some value, but in view of the conclusion reached by us in reference to the defendant's first prayer, it would serve no good purpose to discuss that.
The first prayer offered by Richard B. Tippett was as follows:
There is no evidence whatever of any fraud on the part of Richard B. Tippett, even if there was on the part of James E. Tippett, which we will consider later; yet the replication alleges that she was kept in ignorance "by the fraud of the said defendant"--it being a reply to the separate plea of Richard B. Tippett. The uncontradicted evidence shows that he did not know of the transaction between James E. Tippett and R. T. Yardley for more than two years afterwards, when he was told of it by the plaintiff herself. The plaintiff testified that when she spoke to R. B. Tippett, he said he never heard of it, and when she told him "about the matter he scolded her very much for entering into such speculation." She said he suggested that she write a letter to J. E. Tippett, which she did. That was some time in the fall of 1910; the letter is dated October 22, 1910. In that letter she wrote:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial