Shasserre v. William S. Drozda Realty Co., No. 20064.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtNipper
Citation300 S.W. 1044
PartiesSHASSERRE et ux. v. WILLIAM S. DROZDA REALTY CO.
Docket NumberNo. 20064.
Decision Date10 January 1928
300 S.W. 1044
SHASSERRE et ux.
v.
WILLIAM S. DROZDA REALTY CO.
No. 20064.
St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.
January 10, 1928.
Rehearing Denied January 24, 1928.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court; William H. Killoren, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by A. F. Shasserre and wife against the William S. Drozda Realty Company and others. Judgment against named defendant, and it brings error. Affirmed.

Laughlin, Frumberg, Blodgett & Russell, of St. Louis, for plaintiff in error.

Taylor R. Young, of St. Louis, for defendants in error.

NIPPER, J.


This suit originated in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. Defendants in error are husband and wife, and reside in California. Plaintiff in error is a Missouri corporation, engaged in the business its name indicates, and is located in the city of St. Louis. For convenience, we will hereafter refer to defendants in error as plaintiffs, and plaintiff in error as defendant.

Plaintiffs owned a six-family flat or apartment, located near defendant's place of business. There was a deed of trust for $5,000 against the same. The original defendants in the case were the William S. Drozda Realty Company, Drozda Real Estate Company, and William S. Drozda. Plaintiffs sued to recover damages against all defendants on the ground that defendants, while acting as agents for plaintiffs, in the collection of rents and the handling of their real estate, had represented to them that the property above mentioned was not worth more than $8,000, and that defendants would be able to obtain for them $2,646.60 for their equity in said real estate, and urged plaintiffs to sell at that price; that plaintiffs had great confidence in the integrity and ability of the said agents, and believed that said sum was a good price for their interest in said real estate, and, relying thereon, and at the request of defendants, plaintiffs executed a deed conveying their real estate to one Jessie Jackson on January 5, 1924; that the said Jackson was a mere tool or strawman, and took the title to the said real estate for the benefit of defendants, who paid the purchase price to plaintiffs at the time of the delivery of plaintiffs' deed to the said Jackson, on January 11, 1924; that the representation of defendants that the price was a good price for the plaintiffs' equity was false, and that the defendants knew that such representation was false, and was made by the defendants as an inducement to plaintiffs, who relied thereon, and executed and delivered said deed to Jackson; that defendants immediately thereafter resold the property to one Mustain, at a profit of $2,753.18, for which amount plaintiffs pray actual damages, as well as a prayer for punitive damages.

The answer of the defendants was a general denial.

At the conclusion of the trial, plaintiffs suffer an involuntary nonsuit with leave as to defendant William S. Drozda. There was a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant William S. Drozda Realty Company for the total sum of $2,486, and the jury found a judgment in favor of the defendant Drozda Real Estate Company. William S. Drozda. Company appeal from this judgment, and afterwards dismissed its appeal, and then sued out its writ of error.

The evidence discloses that William S....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Lewis v. Kaplan, No. 19966.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 10, 1928
    ...to enjoin the defendants from violating this ordinance when they undertake or threaten to do so. The commissioner recommends that the 300 S.W. 1044 motion to dismiss the appeal herein be overruled, and that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directio......
1 cases
  • Lewis v. Kaplan, No. 19966.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 10, 1928
    ...to enjoin the defendants from violating this ordinance when they undertake or threaten to do so. The commissioner recommends that the 300 S.W. 1044 motion to dismiss the appeal herein be overruled, and that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directio......

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