Sexton v. Lockwood

• Decision Date: 08 January 1919
• Docket Number: No. 13068.,13068.
• Citation: 207 S.W. 856
• Parties: SEXTON v. LOCKWOOD.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

207 S.W. 856

SEXTON v. LOCKWOOD.

No. 13068.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 8, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; D. H. Harris, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit by Charles E. Sexton against Charles C. Lockwood. Judgment for defendant in circuit court, on appeal from justice court, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

N. T. Gentry, of Columbia, for appellant.

Harris & Price, of Columbia, for respondent.

THIMBLE, J.

Plaintiff brought suit in a justice court to recover the sum of $100 alleged to be due upon a contract for the sale at that price to defendant of the former's undivided one-half interest in some growing crops of cane, potatoes, and corn planted and cultivated on defendant's land. After a verdict for plaintiff in a small sum, both sides appealed to the circuit court, where, upon trial anew, the verdict was for defendant, and plaintiff has appealed.

It seems that plaintiff was a student or literary man living in Columbia, and that an agreement was made between him and defendant that he should come out to the latter's farm and work for him when requested and to raise the above-mentioned crops on the shares. His evidence tended to show that he and his wife went out about June 1, 1917 that, in addition to working for defendant, he put in said crops and had them doing well, when, on account of some misunderstanding or unpleasantness at the house, plaintiff suggested that he sell out; that defendant agreed to buy plaintiff's half interest, and to pay $100 therefor, and to give his note for that sum, due November 1st and bearing no interest until that date. This was on July 26th. Not having a blank note at hand, it was not drawn up until after plaintiff left, when defendant declined to sign. After November 1st arrived, and defendant still refused to pay, suit was instituted.

Defendant's evidence shows that plaintiff did have the three small crops aforesaid on his farm; that each was to own one-half thereof; that on July 1st part of them, the cane, was in pretty fair condition, the corn was up, but he says the potatoes were sunburned. He says some days before July 26th he told plaintiff it was not convenient for him to stay or live with them any longer, and admits that on July 26th he had a conversation with plaintiff about the crops, but denied that he agreed to buy plaintiff's interest therein, or to pay him anything whatever therefor. He admitted that he agreed to let the plaintiff put in the crops; that the latter "did a lot of work on them"; that he did help defendant replant corn; that after he (defendant) refused to buy plaintiff's crops the latter and his wife left, and later, when a note for $100 was twice presented for defendant to sign, he refused to do it. Afterward defendant says he harvested the potatoes and had the cane made into molasses, but has never touched the plaintiff's part thereof, and the potatoes were buried, presumably, in the field where raised.

During the cross-examination of plaintiff the defendant drew out the fact that the plaintiff did not go out to the farm until June 1St, and sought to show that before that date he had not planned to go to the farm at all. The plaintiff replied that he and his wife had hoped all the previous winter to go out during the summer because of his wife's health.

During defendant's direct testimony he was asked, over plaintiff's objection, what reason plaintiff gave for wanting to come to the farm, and defendant answered that the last reason he gave was that he wanted to go on the farm before registration day; in other words, that he was a "slacker," seeking to obtain exemption from, or deferred classification in, military service. Again, defendant was asked how plaintiff came to be living out there with him, and objection was made that the evidence was "wholly immaterial and irrelevant," and for the further reason that the defendant was bound by the answers of plaintiff on that subject. The objection was not finished, as the court overruled it before the objection was completed. The defendant answered that plaintiff took his notion to farm "rather suddenly," and then went on to give what else the plaintiff had said as to why he wanted to live with defendant. Then the defendant was asked how the plaintiff cultivated the crops. This was also objected to "for the above reasons, and for the further reason that it does not affect his contract at all." All the objections were overruled, and all exceptions were saved. The defendant then gave a description of the way in which plaintiff cultivated the crops and of a ridiculous implement he devised and used to cultivate them with.

Defendant urges that the objections were no objections at all, since no reasons were given. Ordinarily, the objection that evidence is "irrelevant and immaterial" does not constitute any objection, since it does not furnish any basis or ground of objection;...