Ritchie v. Kinney

• Citation: 46 Mo. 298
• Parties: WM. G. RITCHIE, Defendant in Error, v. JOSEPH KINNEY, Plaintiff in Error.
• Decision Date: 31 July 1870
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

46 Mo. 298

WM. G. RITCHIE, Defendant in Error,

v.JOSEPH KINNEY, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1870.

Error to First District Court.

Draffen, Hutchinson & Muir, for defendant in error.

W. Adams, for plaintiff in error.

CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a chancery proceeding for the adjustment of partnership accounts and dealings between the parties, growing out of their relations as alleged joint owners of the steamboat Cora. The answer denies the alleged joint ownership, and that is the first question for consideration.

1. In the spring and summer of 1864, as the case shows, the steamboat in question was built in Cincinnati, under the supervision of the defendant. In the progress of the work, negotiations were had between the parties looking to a combination of capital in prosecuting the enterprise. These negotiations resulted in an arrangement by which the plaintiff and his then partner advanced to the defendant the sum of $2000 for investment in the boat. The defendant received and receipted for the money for that purpose, as his receipt read in evidence clearly shows. There is no dispute about these facts, and it is apparent from the case that the money was in fact invested in the boat enterprise. It appears also that the defendant recognized the plaintiff's interest in the boat after its completion, and after it had been in service long enough to make very considerable profits. From all the evidence bearing upon this issue it satisfactorily appears that the plaintiff was interested in the boat, and a joint owner of it in conjunction with the defendant. Various technical objections were made to the form and manner in which the plaintiff acquired his interest. They are not tenable. No bill of sale or formal delivery was requisite. The parties combined their capital in building the boat, and thereby acquired a joint property in it. (Abb. on Ship. 1, 7th Am. ed.) And it is to be observed that the controversy here is between the original parties to the transaction, not between the plaintiff and a subsequent purchaser or creditor. (See 1 Greenl. Ev., § 261, 11th ed.) The cases cited in the defendant's brief, as 1 Kern. 35, and 20 N. Y. 495, are inapplicable to the facts developed upon this record.

2. A number of questions arise upon the accounting. The boat was ultimately sunk and became a total loss. The petition avers, and the averment is not denied, that she was insured at the time for $20,000, and that $16,000 of the insurance money was collected by the defendant. The defendant admits the collection but denies his accountability, and upon the assumed ground that the insurance was taken out upon his interest (he claiming to be the sole owner) and “in his own name,” and not for account of whom it might concern. If the facts assumed appeared in the record, the legal questions arising thereon would deserve careful consideration. But the record discloses no such facts. Nothing of the kind is averred in the pleadings. The insurance papers were not given in evidence, and there was no proof of their contents beyond the fact of the amounts insured. In the absence of evidence, no presumption arises that the insurance was alone in the name of one of the owners, or that it was not in the names of both, or on account of whom it might concern. The circumstance that the defendant was the sole manager of the boat and its affairs proves nothing on this point. The state of the pleadings and proofs indicates that this line of defense was an...