Show-Me Restoration Services v. Harlan, SHOW-ME
| Citation | 778 S.W.2d 350 |
| Decision Date | 25 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 55569,SHOW-ME,55569 |
| Parties | RESTORATION SERVICES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John M. HARLAN d/b/a The Harlan Company, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Richard E. Shinners, Richard P. Perkins, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.
Show-Me Restoration Services, Leroy Wells, Ballwin, pro se.
Plaintiff corporation 1 filed this action seeking to recover the value of services performed and materials supplied in cleaning the exterior of a building undergoing restoration. As defendant in the lawsuit plaintiff named John M. Harlan, d/b/a The Harlan Company. Defendant filed an answer in which he specifically denied doing business as The Harlan Company or that plaintiff had done any work at his request. As an affirmative defense defendant alleged that he "does not conduct business in his individual capacity and that he has had no dealings with plaintiff in his individual capacity." Despite this red flag the case proceeded to trial on the original pleadings. The vice president and co-owner of plaintiff corporation testified that all of plaintiff's dealings were with The Harlan Company which he assumed to be a name under which John Harlan conducted his business. Neither he nor his attorney made any inquiry of the Secretary of State, or elsewhere, in order to ascertain the legal status of The Harlan Company. Defendant introduced evidence of the incorporation of The Harlan Company in 1979 and a certification by the Secretary of State that the corporation remained in good standing as of the date of trial. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against John M. Harlan, d/b/a The Harlan Company. We reverse.
The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove the essential elements of its cause of action. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Groeper, 691 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Mo.App.1985). A judgment in a court-tried case may not be sustained in the absence of substantial evidence to support it. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
The allegation of plaintiff's petition that John Harlan individually was indebted to plaintiff was controverted by the answer of the named defendant. Plaintiff offered no evidence tending to establish the allegation of individual liability. It submitted a written bid on the work to The Harlan Company. The written bid was not signed by anyone on behalf of The Harlan Company. Rather, plaintiff was orally told by an employee of The Harlan Company, other than John Harlan himself, to proceed with the work. All the documents relating to the work were addressed to The Harlan Company, none to John Harlan individually. Plaintiff's only witness testified "I have no idea whether they were incorporated, a private enterprise, a partnership, or what." Section 351.110...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkeye Bank and Trust, Nat. Ass'n v. Baugh
...of Envtl. Protection, 368 A.2d 602, 604 (Me.1977) (citing twenty-three cases in support of general rule); Show-Me Restoration Servs. v. Harlan, 778 S.W.2d 350, 350n. 1 (Mo.App.1989). See generally 9A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations, § 4463, at 38 (1985 and Supp.19......
-
Naylor Senior Citizens Hous., LP v. Sides Constr. Co.
...was “represented by a person unauthorized to do so, the trial court properly dismissed the petition”); Show–Me Restoration Servs. v. Harlan, 778 S.W.2d 350, 351 (Mo.App.1989) (papers stricken because “filed by plaintiff's vice president and co-owner [who is] not an attorney”). 10. Of course......
-
Mueller v. Abdnor
...786 S.W.2d at 918 (citing Chandler v. New Moon Homes, Inc., 418 S.W.2d 130, 135 (Mo.1967) (en banc); Show-Me Restoration Services v. Harlan, 778 S.W.2d 350, 351 (Mo.Ct.App. 1989)). 10. On the basis of the facts set forth in Findings of Fact Nos. 32 & 33, supra, the Court concludes that Muel......
-
Blackwelder v. Blissett, 18479
...their claim against Respondents. Chandler v. New Moon Homes, Inc., 418 S.W.2d 130, 135 (Mo. banc 1967); Show-Me Restoration Services v. Harlan, 778 S.W.2d 350, 351 (Mo.App.E.D.1989). As explained in Phillips v. Phillips, 443 S.W.2d 144, 145-46 (Mo. banc 1969), because a defendant does not h......