Randol v. Kline's, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 April 1932
• Docket Number: No. 31260.,31260.
• Parties: FANNIE L. RANDOL v. KLINE'S, INC., a Corporation, CHARLES R. LAMPING, and WALTER J. PACKWOOD, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

49 S.W.2d 112

FANNIE L. RANDOL v. KLINE'S, INC., a Corporation, CHARLES R. LAMPING, and WALTER J. PACKWOOD, Appellants.

No. 31260.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division Two.

April 28, 1932.^*

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Darius Brown, Judge.

AFFIRMED (on condition).

McVey & Freet, Salkey & Jones and Russell Field for appellants.

(1) The verdict of the jury for $37,500, which includes $25,000 punitive damages, is so grossly excessive and so clearly the result of prejudice, passion and bias that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial and the case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. (a) Where the verdict is excessive this court should set the verdict of the jury aside. 4 C.J. 835; Chlanda v. Transit Co., 213 Mo. 263; Farrell v. Transit Co., 103 Mo. App. 458; Fischer v. St. Louis, 189 Mo. 578; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 268 Mo. 225, 186 S.W. 1076; Keener v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., 269 S.W. 635; Hardy v. Lewis Automobile Co., 297 S.W. 171. (b) In cases involving analogous facts, courts have repeatedly set aside verdicts for much smaller amounts as being excessive and the result of bias, passion and prejudice. W.T. Grant & Co. v. Taylor, 223 Ky. 812, 4 S.W. (2d) 741; Walker v. Martin, 52 Ill. 347; Loewenthal v. Streng, 90 Ill. 74; Schaeffer v. Arnaelsteen (Cal.), 202 Pac. 946; Koch v. Pond, 19 Ohio. App. 1; Wright v. Hagerman (Ky.), 42 S.W. 917; Davis v. McMillan (Mich), 105 N.W. 862; Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Wainscott, 91 Okla. 66, 216 Pac. 141; Vanderlinden v. Oster, 37 S.D. 113, 156 N.W. 911; Davis v. Seeley, 91 Iowa, 583, 60 N.W. 183; Doroszka v. Lavine, 111 Conn. 575, 150 Atl. 692. (c) If compared with other malicious prosecution verdicts in Missouri, the verdict should be reversed as grossly excessive. Van Nort v. Van Nort, 16 S.W. (2d) 643; Alexander v. Emmke, 15 S.W. (2d) 870; Callahan v. Kelso, 170 Mo. App. 338; Farrell v. Transit Co., 103 Mo. App. 454; Ruth v. Transit Co., 98 Mo. App. 1; Bower v. Walker, 182 S.W. 116; Carp v. Queens Ins. Co., 203 Mo. 295; Irons v. Am. Ry. Express Co., 300 S.W. 283; Foster v. C.B. & Q. Ry., 14 S.W. (2d) 561; Peterson v. Fleming, 297 S.W. 163; Hardy v. Lewis Automobile Co., 297 S.W. 169. (2) The trial court erred in admitting evidence of specific instances in the proof of plaintiff's general reputation. 22 C.J. 481; Yager v. Bruce, 116 Mo. App. 493; Rose v. Tholborn, 153 Mo. App. 408; Seymour v. Farrell, 51 Mo. 97; State v. Gesell, 124 Mo. 535; Shaefer v. Mo. Pac. Ry., 98 Mo. App. 453. (3) The trial court erred in refusing the peremptory instructions in the nature of demurrers to all the evidence. (a) The conviction of the plaintiff in the police court is such evidence of probable cause as can be rebutted only by proof of fraud, corruption, false testimony or other unlawful means in its procurement. Wilcox v. Gilmore, 8 S.W. (2d) 962; Wilkerson v. McGhee, 265 Mo. 574, 178 S.W. 471; Boogher v. Hough, 99 Mo. 185, 12 S.W. 524; Peck v. Chouteau, 91 Mo. 149; Firer v. Lowery, 59 Mo. App. 92; Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Butchers Union, 120 U.S. 141, 7 Sup. Ct. 481; Carpenter v. Sibley, 15 Cal. App. 589, 119 Pac. 391; Hartshorne v. Smith, 104 Ga. 235, 30 S.W. 666; McElroy v. Catholic Press Co., 254 Ill. 290, 98 N.E. 527; Adams v. Bicknell, 126 Ind. 210, 25 N.E. 804; Blucher v. Zonker, 19 Ind. App. 615, 49 N.E. 911; Smith v. Parman, 102 Kan. 787, 172 Pac. 33; Duerr v. Ky. & Ind. Bridge & Ry. Co., 132 Ky. 228; Payson v. Caswell, 22 Me. 212; Morrow v. Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co., 165 Mass. 349, 43 N.E. 105; Schnider v. Montross, 158 Mich. 263, 122 N.W. 534; Phillips v. Village of Kalamazoo, 53 Mich. 33, 18 N.W. 547; Buhner v. Reusse, 144 Minn, 450, 175 N.W. 1005; Francisco v. Schmeelk, 141 N.Y. Supp. 402, 156 App. Div. 235; Fones v. Murdock, 80 Ore. 340, 157 Pac. 148; Saunders v. Baldwin, 122 Va. 431, 71 S.E. 620; Haddad v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 77 W. Va. 710, 88 S.E. 1038; Topolewski v. Packing Co., 143 Wis. 52, 126 N.W. 554. (b) There is no such proof of fraud, false testimony, corruption or unfair means in the procurement of the conviction of plaintiff in the municipal court. Wilcox v. Gilmore, 8 S.W. (2d) 961; Firer v. Lowery, 59 Mo. App. 97; Duerr v. Ky. & Ind. Bridge & Ry. Co., supra; Carpenter v. Sibley, supra; Randleman v. Boeres, 270 Pac. 376; Topolewski v. Packing Co., 143 Wis. 52, 126 N.W. 558; Ricketts v. J.G. McCrory Co., 138 Va. 548, 121 S.E. 916; Fones v. Murdock, supra. (4) The trial court erred in giving certain instructions. (a) Instruction numbered P-1, given at plaintiff's request, is erroneous because it attempts to cover the whole case, but excludes the fact that the jury might find in favor of one or more of the defendants, and, therefore, it ignores one of the essential elements of the case. Bixler v. Wagster, 256 S.W. 522; Carroll v. Ry., 60 Mo. App. 468; Allen v. Ry., 294 S.W. 87; Carroll v. Union Marine Ins. Co., 249 S.W. 691; Link v. Westerman, 80 Mo. App. 592; Beggs v. Shelton, 173 Mo. App. 127, 155 S.W. 885; Kelley v. St. Joseph, 170 Mo. App. 358, 156 S.W. 804. (b) Instruction P-6 on the credibility of witnesses is erroneous. Keeline v. Sealy, 257 Mo. 528; Beck v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 207 S.W. 248; Fowler v. Cade, 214 Ill. App. 153. (c) The court's instruction on the forms of verdict is erroneous because it gives improper prominence to the jury's right to assess punitive damages. Barr v. The City of Kansas, 105 Mo. 559; Robinson v. Cruzen, 202 S.W. 451; Zumwalt v. Chicago & Alton Ry. Co., 266 S.W. 726. (5) This case should be reversed and remanded because of misconduct of counsel for plaintiff in his closing argument. (a) Counsel's remarks were an appeal to the jury's prejudice and constituted reversible error. Neff v. City of Cameron, 213 Mo. 350; Barnes v. St. Joseph, 139 Mo. App. 545; Bishop v. Hunt, 24 Mo. App. 377; Harper v. Telegraph Co., 92 Mo. App. 313; Williams v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry., 123 Mo. 586; State v. Davis, 217 S.W. 92; Beck v. Railroad, 129 Mo. App. 7; Killoren v. Dunn, 68 Mo. App. 217. (b) Counsel's remarks that any judgment rendered against Packwood or Lamping would have to be paid by Kline's is, outside the record, directly contrary to the law and prejudicial error. Berry v. Railroad Co., 214 Mo. 593, 114 S.W. 27; Fulwider v. Gas, Light & Power Co., 216 Mo. 591; Asher v. City of Independence, 177 Mo. App. 8; Sec. 3268, R.S. 1929; Gann v. Ry. Co., 6 S.W. (2d) 45; Eaton v. Trust Co., 123 Mo. App. 128, 100 S.W. 551; Judd v. Walker, 158 Mo. App. 168. (c) Counsel in referring to excluded evidence committed prejudicial error. Ritter v. First Natl. Bank, 87 Mo. 574; Haynes v. The Town of Trenton, 108 Mo. 133; Brinton v. Thomas, 138 Mo. App. 75, 119 S.W. 1016.

Harry G. Kyle and Walter A. Raymond for respondent.

(1) The verdict of the jury is not excessive and should not be disturbed. Peterson v. Fleming, 297 S.W. 168; Ross & Co. v. Inness, 35 Ill. 510; Irons v. Ry. Express Co., 300 S.W. 293; Foster v. Ry. Co., 14 S.W. (2d) 574; Minter v. Bradstreet Co., 73 S.W. 668, 174 Mo. 444; Cook v. Globe Printing Co., 127 S.W. 332, 227 Mo. 559; Reese v. Fife, 279 S.W. 415; Seested v. Post Pub. Co., 31 S.W. (2d) 1054; Walton Trust Co. v. Taylor, 2 Fed. (2d) 342; Black v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 218 Fed. 239; Mexican Cen. Ry. Co. v. Gehr, 66 Ill. App. 173; Talbert v. Railroad Co., 15 S.W. (2d) 764; Lincoln v. Claflin, 74 U.S. 139; Frazier v. Carpet Co., 141 Mass. 126; W.T. Grant Co. v. Taylor, 223 Ky. 812, 4 S.W. (2d) 744; Doroscka v. Levine, 111 Conn. 575, 150 Atl. 692; Schaffer v. Steen, 202 Pac. 950; Foster v. Railroad Co., 14 S.W. (2d) 569. (2) The court committed no error in admitting evidence of specific instances of loss of friends after the malicious prosecution. Paepke v. Steadlaman, 300 S.W. 847; Willgues v. Pacific Railroad Co., 298 S.W. 826; Gazzel v. Schofield, 8 S.W. (2d) 590; Shouse v. Dubinsky, 38 S.W. (2d) 530; Post Publishing Co. v. Peck, 199 Fed. 23; Cote v. Gillette, 186 S.W. 540; Burrows v. Pullitzer Pub. Co., 255 S.W. 930; Tamblyn v. Johnston, 126 Fed. 275; Stoecker v. Nathanson, 70 L.R.A. (Neb.) 669; Wheeler v. Hansen, 37 N.W. 384; Lowe v. Brown, 255 Pac. 397; Bishop v. New York Times, 135 N.E. 848; Flamm v. Lee, 90 N.W. 72. (3) The trial court properly overruled appellants' demurrers to the evidence. (a) The conviction of plaintiff in the police court reversed on appeal to the circuit court was not such evidence of probable cause as required proof of fraud, corruption or false testimony. Randol v. Kline's, 18 S.W. (2d) 507. (b) There is abundant proof of fraud, false testimony, corruption, non-belief in plaintiff's guilt, and unfair means in the procurement of the conviction of plaintiff in the municipal court. Randol v. Kline's, 18 S.W. (2d) 506; Steppuhn v. Railroad Co., 199 Mo. App. 571, 204 S.W. 582; Foster v. Railroad Co., 14 S.W. (2d) 571; Hanser v. Bieber, 271 Mo. 326, 197 S.W. 71; Stewart v. Sunneborn, 98 U.S. 187, 25 L. Ed. 119; Peck v. Chouteau, 91 Mo. 149; Carp v. Queen Ins. Co., 230 Mo. 361; McDonald v. Schroeder, 214 Pa. 411, 63 Atl. 1024, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 703. (4) The instructions given by the court properly declared the law. (a) There was no error in plaintiff's Instruction P-1. Hinson v. Morris, 298 S.W. 257; Alexander v. Emmke, 15 S.W. (2d) 873; Spencer v. Railroad Co., 297 S.W. 357; Flannagan v. Ry. Co., 297 S.W. 467; Winfield v. Wabash, 257 Mo. 347, 166 S.W. 1041; Hutchcraft v. Gas Light Co., 282 S.W. 38; Lanetz v. Lime & Cement Co., 252 S.W. 70. (b) Instruction P-6 on the credibility of witnesses was proper. Wendling v. Bowden, 252 Mo. 693; Crews v. Wilson, 281 S.W. 45. (c) The court's instruction on the forms of verdict is not erroneous or prejudicial. Powell v. Union Pac. Railroad Co., 255 Mo. 420, 164 S.W. 638. (5) There was no misconduct of counsel in his closing argument. (a) Counsel's remarks were in answer to the argument of appellants' counsel. Kersten v. Hinds, 283 Mo. 623, 233 S.W. 589; Kamer v. Railroad Co., 32 S.W. (2d) 1084; Citizens Bank of Zenith v....