Raifeisen v. Young

• Decision Date: 02 June 1914
• Docket Number: No. 13536.,13536.
• Citation: 183 Mo. App. 508,167 S.W. 648
• Parties: RAIFEISEN v. YOUNG et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

167 S.W. 648

183 Mo. A. 508

RAIFEISEN v. YOUNG et al.

No. 13536.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 2, 1914.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 842)—GROUND FOR NEW TRIAL—INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

A ground of a motion for new trial that the verdict is against the evidence is not a ground on which the appellate court may interfere.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1001)—VERDICT.

The court on appeal can reverse a judgment on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence only when there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict.

3. NEW TRIAL (§ 128)—GROUNDS.

A ground of motion for new trial that the verdict is against the law, as declared in the instructions, is too general for consideration.

4. NEW TRIAL (§ 128)—GROUNDS.

A ground of a motion for new trial that the verdict should have been for plaintiff and not for defendant is equivalent to a contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, and is not sufficiently specific.

5. NEW TRIAL (§ 128)—GROUNDS.

A motion for new trial must set out the reasons therefor so definitely as to direct the court's attention to the precise complaint.

6. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 281)—QUESTIONS REVIEWABLE — ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.

The court on appeal may only review the assignments of error preserved in the motion for new trial.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bollinger County; Peter H. Huck, Judge.

Action by C. J. Raifeisen against W. E. Young and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Montgomery & Montgomery, of Sedalia, for appellant. W. K. Chandler, of Marble Hill, for respondents.

ALLEN, J.

This is an action upon a bond executed by the defendant Young, as principal, and by his codefendants as sureties. Plaintiff, the obligee in the bond, entered into a contract with the defendant Young, employing the latter as a salesman, to sell goods manufactured or sold by a certain company, in territory which might be assigned to said defendant from time to time. The term of hiring was for one year, with a provision that plaintiff retained the right to terminate the contract at any time whenever, in his opinion, defendant Young "did not handle the territory assigned to him to the best interest" of the manufacturing company, whose goods he was selling. Defendant Young was to be paid a certain commission upon sales made by him; it being agreed that the plaintiff would advance to him, from time to time, such necessary sums of money for traveling expenses as he might require. The bond, of even date with the contract, was conditioned that defendant Young should account for and return the samples, trunks, etc., furnished him, and repay to plaintiff, upon ceasing to act as traveling salesman under the contract, such moneys as had then been advanced to him for traveling expenses in excess of the commissions earned by him.

It appears that defendant Young began work under the contract early in November, 1910, and continued in such employment until about March 21, 1911, when he was discharged by plaintiff. During this time plaintiff had advanced his traveling expenses, which it is claimed, exceeded the amount of his...