Seibert's Assignee v. Ragsdale
| Decision Date | 18 February 1898 |
| Citation | 103 Ky. 206 |
| Parties | Seibert's Assignee v. Ragsdale. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT.
HUNTER WOOD & SON AND JOHN FELAND & SON FOR APPELLANT.
JUDGE BURNAM DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This action was instituted at law by appellant as assignee of Henry Seibert for the recovery of a large balance alleged to be due by appellee to his assignor, growing out of the settlement of a partnership which had run through a course of years. Appellee lived in Hopkinsville, and, according to the allegations of the petition, was to purchase tobacco in that neighborhood and ship it to Seibert, and the latter was to obtain the money to pay for the purchases on bills drawn against the invoices and to attend to the selling. Neither party was to charge anything for his services, and the profits and losses were to be equally divided between them.
Appellee, on the contrary, insists that he had been employed by appellant's assignor for a good many years upon commission to purchase tobacco for him in the neighborhood of Hopkinsville; that these purchases had been uniformly profitable, and that about the year 1886 appellant's assignor proposed to him that instead of paying him a commission for his services, if he would give his time, attention and talents to the purchase of tobacco and be at all expense connected therewith, he (Seibert) would furnish all the money for the purchases and be at all expense in selling same, that he would make no charge for his services, and that after the payment of transportation, insurance, warehouse charges and refunding the money advanced, he would give to appellee one-half the net profits as his compensation; and appellee makes his answer a cross-petition, alleging that owing to the negligence, carelessness and inattention of Seibert in making sales and attending to his part of the duties, he never received anything for his services.
There was no written agreement between the parties. The trial resulted in a verdict of one cent in favor of appellee, and this appeal is prosecuted from that judgment and a reversal asked for several alleged errors.
Plaintiff alleges that he had furnished regularly a statement of accounts to appellee showing the amount of money he had advanced, when and how it was obtained, the number of hogsheads of tobacco he had received, the charges and expenses paid on them, how many of them had been sold, what they had brought and what was done with the money, and that he had in his possession letter-press copies of all these communications, running through a number of years, and the replies thereto of appellee; but of the vast number of letters he had written to appellee only about thirteen of the originals were on file, and as he could not produce the other originals he offered as secondary evidence his letterpress copies as evidence to prove the contents of the mass of communications, after having first laid the foundation therefor.
The court, on motion of defendant, refused to allow these copies to be read to the jury, and this is complained of as, perhaps, the most serious error to appellant's prejudice, as it is insisted that this correspondence would...
To continue reading
Request your trial