Shoffner v. Fink

• Decision Date: 01 April 1912
• Citation: 145 S.W. 504
• Parties: SHOFFNER v. FINK.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

145 S.W. 504

SHOFFNER v. FINK.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 1, 1912.

EVIDENCE (§ 106)—PLAINTIFF'S REPUTATION —ADMISSIBILITY.

On a claim against a decedent's estate on checks for money claimed to have been borrowed, it was error to permit the estate to show that plaintiff's general reputation as a law-abiding citizen was bad and that he had a general reputation of being a gambler and a bootlegger.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; C. H. Skinker, Judge.

Action by James H. Shoffner against A. C. Fink, James T. Price's administrator. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Rechow & Pufahl, of Bolivar, for appellant. L. Cunningham, of Bolivar, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

This suit originated in the probate court of Polk county, wherein the plaintiff filed his demand against the estate of James T. Price, deceased, founded upon two checks which he claimed the deceased executed to him for money borrowed. The defendant, as administrator of the estate, successfully resisted the allowance of the demand, and the plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, wherein the case was tried anew, resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff appealed to this court.

The deceased lived on a farm near Bolivar, and kept an account with the Polk County Bank of said city. He came to Bolivar Saturday morning, October 29, 1910, and remained in town all that day, but returned home some time Sunday morning. The next day he shot himself, and died on the 2d day of November, 1910. The plaintiff claimed that on the 29th day of October he let the deceased have $155, for which the latter executed two checks, payable to plaintiff's order, and delivered them to him; that at the time of the execution of the checks the bank was closed, and the deceased said he must have the currency that night, and to accommodate him plaintiff let him have the money and took the checks therefor. There was no evidence of any use the deceased made of the money thus obtained, and when he shot himself he had only 75 cents on his person. There was some testimony that the checks were not in the handwriting of the deceased, and also that he was intoxicated at the time it is claimed the checks were executed. Without further reviewing the testimony, it is sufficient to say that the issues were for the court as a jury, and, unless error was committed in the admission of testimony, the judgment must be affirmed.

The plaintiff did not testify, and defendant was permitted to prove by witnesses that the plaintiff's general reputation as a law-abiding citizen was bad, and that he had the general reputation of being a gambler and bootlegger. The court made a special finding of facts, which contained the following: "I further find that considering the unusual nature of the transaction testified to by said witnesses, the character of said witnesses, and the general reputation of the plaintiff, and all the facts and...