Schroeder v. Stadley

• Decision Date: 06 May 1924
• Docket Number: No. 18432.,18432.
• Parties: SCHOEDER v. STADLEY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

261 S.W. 934

SCHOEDER v. STADLEY.

No. 18432.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 6, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; E. B. Woolfolk, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by John E. Schroeder against J. E. (Ed) Stadley and another. Judgment for plaintiff against both defendants, and the named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

May & May, of Louisiana, Mo., for appellant.

F. D. Wilkins and Ras Pearson, both of Louisiana, Mo., for respondent.

DALES, J.

This suit is brought on an account for work done on an automobile and for accessories, oil, and gasoline. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $238.27 against defendants J. E. Stadley and Cam Stadley. Defendant J. E. Stadley alone appeals.

The account runs from May 19, 1020, to November 18 of the same year. The evidence tends to prove that plaintiff owned and operated a garage in the city of Louisiana. Defendant (appellant) was the father of his codefendant, Cam Stadley. The son lived on a farm with his parents. It appears that in the spring of 1919 appellant bought an automobile, and took out a state license for the year 1919 in his own name, and again took out the license in his own name for the year 1920. In the spring of 1920, he made the statutory affidavit that he was the owner of the car. Appellant claims, however, that in the summer of 1919 he had sold the car to his son, Cam Stadley. It was shown that the appellant could not drive the automobile, but that the son could, and also that the wife of appellant could drive the car, and did drive same from time to time. The car was used on the farm for family purposes, the three going to and from town in same, and the car was used by the family very generally.

From the testimony of appellant himself we have a description of Cam Stadley, the son. It appears that he was a man of no financial responsibility whatsoever, living wherever his hat was off, and, as the father said, he worked off and on, more off than on, at $35 per month. Plaintiff testified that the appellant was present when the account started, stating that both of the defendants were at the garage, and that both of them looked over the tires and accessories, and made complaint about certain goods purchased. It also appears in evidence that the plaintiff talked to appellant with reference to this account, in which conversation plaintiff called appellant's attention to the fact that the account was getting quite large, whereupon appellant assured plaintiff that "they would settle it up; that it would be settled in the fall at that time; that they would settle the account."

It is in evidence that in the summer and fall of 1920 the defendants and Mrs. J. E. Stadley brought 'the car into the garage from time to time to buy accessories and gasoline, etc., and also to have repairs made on the car. Plaintiff says the goods were to Ed Stadley and Cam Stadley jointly, and that the account was regularly kept by him personally, and that all of the charges were made in his own handwriting, charges for 15 gallons of gasoline, and for a few patches and repairing tubes, in all to $6.90, which entries he says were made by others in the garage. testified that the daybook, in which the original entries were made, had become destroyed, and that the account was regularly transferred to the ledger sheets, being posted about once a week.

Defendant Cam Stadley defaulted. Appellant filed an answer, which is a general denial. The defense, as we gather it from the record, was that the defendant did not own the automobile in 1920, and that he did not order any of the articles charged in the...