Riss & Co., Inc., v. Wallace

Citation195 S.W.2d 881
Decision Date13 May 1946
Docket NumberNo. 20692.,20692.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
PartiesRISS & COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT, v. J.L. WALLACE, RESPONDENT.

Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County. Hon. Allen C. Southern, Judge.

JUDGMENT REVERSED.

Trusty & Pugh, M.D. Campbell, Jr. and Guy Green for appellant.

(1) The court erred in refusing to sustain appellant's motions to dismiss and strike Count Two of defendant's counterclaim and appellant's objection to the introduction of evidence thereon because: (a) The Supreme Court had affirmed a judgment against defendant on that cause of action and remanded the case with specific directions to retry only one issue, to-wit, Count Two of the plaintiff's petition, and all other issues were res adjudicata. Riss & Co., Inc., v. Wallace, 171 S.W. (2d) 641; Denny v. Guyton, 57 S.W. (2d) 415; 4 C.J. 1093-1100. (b) The affirmance of the action of the trial court at the first trial in sustaining plaintiff's motion to strike Count One (now Count Two) of defendant's counterclaim because it failed to state a cause of action, and in entering judgment thereon constituted a judgment on the merits and was res adjudicata, and binding on defendant in this or any other action, and defendant was estopped to again set it up. Kansas City to use of Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Southern Surety Co., 51 S.W. (2d) 221; Custer v. Kroeger, (Mo.) 280 S.W. 1035; Johnson v. United Railways, (Mo.) 147 S.W. 1077; R.S. Mo. 1939, Sec. 1001; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 117 Mo. 261, 22 S.W. 623; Coleman v. Dalton, 71 Mo. App. 14. (c) Under the principle of "law of the case," Count Two could only state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted if it contained averments that the vehicles had been or would be tendered back to plaintiff, which averments were not contained in said count of said counterclaim. Talbert v. C.R.I. & P. Ry. Co., (Mo.) 15 S.W. (2d) 762; Denny v. Guyton, (Mo.) 57 S.W. (2d) 415, supra; Cape Girardeau, etc., R. Co. v. Southern Ill. & Mo. Bridge Co., (Mo.) 114 S.W. 1084; R.S. Mo., Section 8382 (c); Boyer v. Garner, (Mo. App.) 15 S.W. (2d) 983; Reed v. Cook, (Mo.) 55 S.W. (2d) 275; 17 C.J.S., Sec. 172, p. 532; McCoy v. McMahon Const. Co., (Mo.) 216 S.W. 770; Isaacson v. Van Gundy, (Mo. App.) 48 S.W. (2d) 208. The court erred in refusing to sustain plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence on Count Two of defendant's counterclaim, because: (a) The evidence fails to sustain a recovery on the theory of money had and received because the evidence shows that defendant did not tender or offer to tender the vehicles back to plaintiff, and fully performed the contract and accepted its benefits and has made it impossible to tender them back, and under the law he could not retain them and recover. Riss v. Wallace, 171 S.W. (2d) 641; Boyer v. Garner, (Mo. App.) 15 S.W. (2d) 893, supra; Ullman et al. v. St. Louis Fair Ass'n, (Mo.) 66 S.W. 949; R.S. Mo. 1939, Sec. 8382 (c) and 8404 (d); Personal Finance Co. v. Lewis Investment Co., (Mo. App.) 138 S.W. (2d) 655; State ex rel. Isaacson v. Trimble, (Mo.) 72 S.W. (2d) 111; 17 C.J.S., p. 662, Sec. 275; 13 C.J., p. 501, Sec. 444; Adams Express Co. v. Reno, 48 Mo. 264. (b) The evidence was insufficient to authorize a recovery in favor of the defendant thereon for fraud and deceit, because: (1) Under the "law of the case" as set out by the Supreme Court, the evidence did not authorize a recovery on that theory. Riss & Company v. Wallace, (Mo.) 171 S.W. (2d) 641; Talbert v. C.R.I. & P. Ry. Co., (Mo.) 15 S.W. (2d) 672; Denny v. Guyton, (Mo.) 57 S.W. (2d) 415; Cape Girardeau, etc., R. Co. v. Southern Ill. & Mo. Bridge Co., (Mo.) 114 S.W. 1084; R.S. of Mo., Section 8382 (c); Boyer v. Garner, (Mo. App.) 15 S.W. (2d) 893; Reed v. Cook, (Mo.) 55 S.W. (2d) 275; 17 C.J.S., Sec. 172, p. 532; McCoy v. McMahon Const. Co., (Mo.) 216 S.W. 770; Isaacson v. Van Gundy, (Mo. App.) 48 S.W. (2d) 208. (2) Since the defendant was in pari delicto and particeps criminis, the law will allow him no redress on the theory of fraud and deceit in being induced to enter an illegal transaction. Kitchen v. Greenbaum, 61 Mo. 110; White v. McCoy Land Co., 87 S.W. (2d) 672, 111 S.W. (2d) 18. (3) Even if defendant had not been in pari delicto, he could not recover because he had fully performed the contract and accepted the benefits therefrom. 17 C.J.S., p. 660, Secs. 274, 275; White v. McCoy Land Co., 87 S.W. (2d) 672, 111 S.W. (2d 18; 13 C.J., p. 498, Sec. 442, 444; Ullman v. St. L.F. Ass'n, (Mo.) 66 S.W. 949; Ditkof v. Lefschitz, (Minn.) 169 N.W. 483; New Century Mfg. Co. v. Scheurer, (Tex.) 45 S.W. (2d) 560; Heller v. Achorn et al., Admr. of Morse, Deceased, (Mass.) 151 N.E. 305, 45 A.L.R. 788; Mitchell v. Delback, (Cal.) 66 Pac. (2d) 1261. (4) Irrespective of the illegality of the transaction, the essential elements of an action for fraud and deceit are lacking because there is no evidence of representations inducing the contract, nor damage resulting therefrom. Menke et al. v. Rovin. (Mo.) 180 S.W. (2d) 24; Gockel v. Gockel, 66 S.W. (2d) 867; Remmers v. Remmers, (Mo.) 117 S.W. 1117; Reed v. Cook. (Mo.) 55 S.W. (2d) 275; 37 C.J.S., Sec. 40, page 288, Sec. 139, page 465; Budd v. Budd, (Mo. App.) 122 S.W. (2d) 402; Abbott v. Miller, (Mo. App.) 41 S.W. (2d) 898; Gash v. Mansfield, (Mo. App.) 28 S.W. (2d) 127; Donaldson v. Donaldson, 249 Mo. 228, 155 S.W. 791; Tinker v. Kier, 195 Mo. 183, 94 S.W. 501.

Homer A. Cope, Cope & Hadsell, L.V. Copley and Walter A. Raymond for respondent.

The trial court properly refused to sustain appellant's motions to dismiss and strike count two of defendant's counterclaim and appellant's objection to the introduction of evidence. (1) The Supreme Court on former appeal held only that the counterclaim was not a proper defense to the replevin action stated in the first count but specifically left open the question of defendant's right to recover on such right of action under proper pleadings. Riss & Co. v. Wallace, 350 Mo. 1208, 171 S.W. (2d) 641; Johnson v. United Rys. Co., 243 Mo. 278, 147 S.W. 1077; Heagerty v. Hawkins, 173 S.W. (2d) 923; Missouri Cattle Loan Co. v. Great Southern Life Ins. Co., 330 Mo. 988, 52 S.W. (2d) 1; Wilson & Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 300 Mo. 1, 254 S.W. 266; Rhodus v. Greatley, 347 Mo. 397, 147 S.W. (2d) 631; State ex rel. and to Use of Smith v. Boudreau, 82 S.W. (2d) 129; Adams v. Adams, 350 Mo. 152, 165 S.W. (2d) 676; Wilcox v. Phillips, 260 Mo. 664, 169 S.W. 55; Barber v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 279 Mo. 316, 214 S.W. 206; State ex rel. Anderson Motor Service Co. v. Public Service Commission, 234 Mo. App. 470, 134 S.W. (2d) 1069, 1077-1079, Affirmed by Supreme Court, 348 Mo. 613, 154 S.W. (2d) 777. (2) Appellant erroneously contends the reversal and remand by the Supreme Court on first appeal was with specific instructions. Heagerty v. Hawkins, 173 S.W. (2d) 923; Koontz v. Whitaker, 111 S.W. (2d) 197; Couch v. Harp. 201 Mo. 457, 100 S.W. 9. (3) The pleadings were amended subsequently to the opinion of the Supreme Court so as to introduce new issues which rendered tender back of the vehicles unnecessary. Morse v. Consolidated Underwriters, 349 Mo. 785, 163 S.W. (2d) 586; Riss & Co. v. Wallace, 171 S.W. (2d) 644; Davidson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 301 Mo. 79 256 S.W. 169; State ex rel. Anderson Motor Service Co. v. Public Service Commission, 234 Mo. App. 470, 134 S.W. (2d) 1069.; State ex rel. Anderson Motor Service Co. v. Public Service Commission, 348 Mo. 613, 154 S.W. (2d) 777; McNatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., 341 Mo. 516, 108 S.W. (2d) 33; Smiley v. Kinney, 262 S.W. 349; Boyer v. Garner, 15 S.W. (2d) 893. (1) The evidence was sufficient to sustain a recovery on the theory of money had and received. Nodaway County v. Kidder, 344 Mo. 795, 129 S.W. (2d) 857; Webster v. Sterling Finance Co., 351 Mo. 754, 173 S.W. (2d) 928, 930, 931; Saffran v. Rhode Island Ins. Co. of Providence, R.L. 141 S.W. (2d) 98; Alberger v. White, 117 Mo. 347, 23 S.W. 92, 96; Boyer v. Garner, 15 S.W. (2d) 893; Huth v. Picotte, 154 S.W. (2d) 382. (2) The evidence was sufficient to authorize a recovery in favor of defendant for fraud and deceit. (a) The Supreme Court opinion on former appeal does not constitute the "law of the case" as the pleadings have been amended and the evidence is different on this appeal. (b) Defendant was not in pari delicto nor particeps criminis and hence not barred of recovery on the theory of fraud and deceit on such grounds. Boyer v. Garner, 15 S.W. (2d) 893; Riss & Co. v. Wallace, 171 S.W. (2d) 644; Wenninger v. Mitchell, 139 Mo. App. 420, 122 S.W. 1130, 1133; Witmer v. Nichols, 8 S.W. (2d) 63; Sparkman v. Triplett, 292 Ky. 569, 167 S.W. (2d) 323; Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 130 N.J. Eq. 531, 23 Atl. 607; 12 Am. Jur., p. 735, Secs. 217 and 219; 17 C.J.S., p. 661, Sec. 274; 13 C.J., p. 498, Sec. 442, and 125 A.L.R. 800; Green v. Corrigan, 87 Mo. 359; Hobbs v. Boatright, 195 Mo. 693, 93 S.W. 934; Kitchen v. Greenbaum, 61 Mo. 110; White v. McCoy Land Co., 229 Mo. App. 1019, 87 S.W. (2d) 672, 687 — Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 341 Mo. 1004, 111 S.W. (2d) 18; Smith v. Holloesy Const. Co., 344 Mo. 862, 129 S.W. (2d) 894. (c) Defendant is not barred because he fully performed his part of the contract and it was breached and unexecuted only on the part of the plaintiff. Wenninger v. Mitchell, 139 Mo. App. 420, 122 S.W. 1130; Hobbs v. Boatright, 195 Mo. 693, 93 S.W. 934. (d) There is substantial evidence of plaintiff's fraudulent representations inducing the contract and causing damage to defendant. Saffran v. Rhode Island Ins. Co. of Providence, R.I., (Mo. App.) 141 S.W. (2d) 98; Metropolitan Paving Co. v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., 309 Mo. 638, 274 S.W. 815; Collins v. Lindsay (Mo.), 25 S.W. (2d) 84; Patzman v. Howey, 340 Mo. 11, 100 S.W. (2d) 851; Aeolian Co. of Missouri v. Boyd, 65 S.W. (2d) 11;Messerli v. Bantrup, 216 S.W. 825, 826; Smithpeter v. Mid-State Motor Co., 74 S.W. (2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Kesinger v. Burtrum
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 17, 1956
    ... ... action is sought to be maintained.' United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co., Mo.App., 153 S.W.2d 752, 757; Young v ... G. F. C. Corp., Mo.App., 255 S.W.2d 69, 71(3). See also Riss & Co. v. Wallace, 350 Mo. 1208, 1216, 171 S.W.2d 641, 644, 151 A.L.R. 512; ... ...
  • Riss & Co. v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 1946
    ... 195 S.W.2d 881 239 Mo.App. 979 Riss & Company, Inc., Appellant, v. J. L. Wallace, Respondent Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City May 13, 1946 ...           Appeal ... from Circuit Court of Jackson County; Hon. Allen C. Southern, ...           ... Judgment reversed ...           Trusty & Pugh, M. D ... ...
  • Galemore v. Mid-West Nat. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1969
    ... ... E. Galemore, Jr., who was the president of Galemore Motor Co., Inc., the franchised dealer in Charleston, Missouri, for Chrysler, Dodge and Plymouth autmobiles. The ... v. Peoples Bank of Kansas City, Mo.App., 320 S.W.2d 72, 78(7); Riss & Co. v. Wallace, 239 Mo.App. 979, 195 S.W.2d 881, 886(9); Mathes v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of ... ...
  • MUTUAL BEN. HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASS'N v. Cohen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 11, 1952
    ...Mason City & Ft. Dodge Railroad Co., 199 U.S. 160, 166, 26 S.Ct. 19, 20, 50 L.Ed. 134. To the same effect are: Riss & Co. v. Wallace, 239 Mo.App. 979, 988, 195 S.W.2d 881, 885; In re City of Berkeley, Mo.App., 155 S.W.2d 138, 140, and In re Moody's Estate (Lee v. Grace), 229 Mo.App. 625, 62......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT