Smith v. Rodick
| Decision Date | 09 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 22298,22298 |
| Citation | 286 S.W.2d 73 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | George E. SMITH and Lillian M. Smith, Appellants, v. Henry F. RODICK, Vernon F. Rodick and the National Engineering & Manufacturing Company, a Corporation, Respondents. |
Henry G. Eager, Richard G. Poland, Blackmar, Swanson, Midgley, Jones & Eager, Kansas City, for appellants.
Walter R. Barnes, Wm. Dennis Bush, Kansas City, for respondents.
This is an action for money had and received. Plaintiffs recovered a verdict and judgment for $1,550. Defendants were granted a new trial and plaintiffs have appealed.
In substance plaintiffs' petition alleged that they agreed to purchase and defendants agreed to sell for $6,200 certain steel forms intended for use in the construction of concrete dwelling houses; that for the purchase price plaintiffs paid to defendants $1,550 in cash, and executed two promissory notes payable to defendants, the face amount of one note being $4,696.50, the other $827.75; that defendants failed and refused to manufacture and deliver said steel forms; and that defendants have been benefited in the amount of $1,550, which sum belongs to plaintiffs and by law should be refunded to them.
Defendants' answer admitted that defendants sold to plaintiffs the materials mentioned in plaintiffs' petition and that plaintiffs paid to them the sum of $1,550 and executed the notes above described. The answer then alleged that 'said steel forms sold to plaintiffs, were practical and feasible for use in building concrete dwelling houses.'
Coupled with defendants' answer were three counterclaims. The first was based upon the note for $4,696.50, and defendants sought judgment for the face amount thereof plus interest and other charges, or a total of $5,369.81. The second was based upon the note for $827.75, and defendants asked judgment for $1,208.52. The third alleged that, at plaintiffs' request, defendants loaned to plaintiffs the sum of $410.94, which sum was never repaid by plaintiffs and, together with interest thereon, amounted to $593.81.
The trial of the case began on Monday, October 18, 1954, before Judge John F. Cook and a jury. On the following Thursday at 2:20 p. m. both parties rested. The jury was instructed and the case argued later that afternoon, but not submitted.
Among the instructions given only Number 1 directed a verdict for plaintiffs. Numbers V and VII, which were on the first two counterclaims, both required that the jury must 'first find against the plaintiffs on Instruction No. 1.' Instruction No. 1 itself required jury findings in the conjunctive that among other things 'the Smiths paid $1,550.00 to the Rodicks as a part of the purchase price, if so,' that the Rodicks thereafter failed to perform the agreement and that plaintiffs elected to rescind and 'asked for their money back.' After these findings the jury was then told in this same instruction that: '* * * if so, then your verdict should be favor of the plaintiffs on their petition and against all three of the defendants * * * in the principal amount of $1,550.00 and you may allow interest thereon * * *.'
Instructions Number II and III submitted plaintiffs' defenses of failure of consideration upon the notes and Number VII given on behalf of defendants directed a verdict on one of the counterclaims, saying: '* * * it is admitted that plaintiffs did on October 4, 1946, pay to defendants a down payment of $500.00, in cash, and that a second down payment was paid to the defendants by the plaintiffs on October 18, 1946, in the amount of $1,050.00, in cash, leaving a balance on the purchase price of $4,650.00.'
Before Thursday's adjournment at 4:38 p. m. Judge Cook announced to counsel and the jury that on the next day he would leave the city, but that he would ask Judge Duvual P. Strother to continue with the case. At 9:30 a. m. on Friday, October 22, 1954, with Judge Strother presiding the jury retired. At 12:38 p. m. a verdict signed by nine jurors was returned, stating: 'We, the undersigned jurors, find the issues for the plaintiffs on both the plaintiffs' petition and counterclaim and do assess their damages at $200.00.' At this time plaintiffs' counsel said: After conferring in chambers and because of the absence of Mr. Barnes Judge Storther recessed the jury until 2:00 p. m. with an admonition not to discuss the case further among themselves 'until you go back into the jury room.'
At 2:00 p. m. Mr. Barnes appeared. In the Court's Chambers and out of the hearing of the jury plaintiffs' counsel said: 'Plaintiffs request that the jury be informed by the Court that this verdict is improper in amount under the instructions; and request the jury to retire to deliberate, retire to the jury room to deliberate further and to consider the instructions and the evidence in this case.' Defendants' counsel opposed this request and considerable discussion ensued between counsel, all out of the hearing of the jury. When the discussion ended, Judge Strother entered the court room and from the bench said:
'A Juror: I have been appointed foreman of the jury.
'The Court: Yes, sir.
'The Court: I think I can't give you anything definite as to how you shall arrive at your verdict, but I think if you will, as I suggested, take into consideration the evidence you have heard and follow the instructions of the Court, if you can agree upon a verdict, then the instructions and information as to how to render a verdict.
'Mr. Barnes: I think what is troubling him----
'Mr. Barnes: I can answer this question.
At 2:15 p. m. the jury retired to return ten minutes later with the following nine-man verdict: 'We, the undersigned jurors, find the issues for the plaintiffs on both the plaintiffs' petition and counterclaim and do assess their damages at $1550.00 the principal amount with no interest allowed.' Judgment was accordingly entered and in due time defendants filed their motion for a new trial. This motion was sustained by Judge Cook on the ground that 'the Court erred in refusing to accept the first verdict by the jury and that (the) second verdict was coerced.' As we have stated, plaintiffs appealed.
We have jurisdiction although the sums claimed in the petition and in the counterclaim total $8,722.14. This is not a case where plaintiffs' claim and defendants' counterclaims can co-exist in law. Therefore, the amount awarded plaintiffs ($1,550) is the 'amount in dispute,' for the purpose of conferring appellate jurisdiction. Jameson v. Fox, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 507.
Plaintiffs' first contention is that the trial court erred 'in holding that it should have accepted the first verdict because the $200 verdict was not responsive in amount to the admitted issues and was therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Kaestner, 30315
...and that is within the jurisdictional limits of this court. Hamilton Fire Ins. Co. v. Cervantes, Mo.App., 278 S.W.2d 20; Smith v. Rodick, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 73. Between the date of the trial court's ruling on the motion for new trial and the hearing on this appeal, the Supreme Court, in Ke......
-
Johnson v. Girvin's Estate
...208 Mo.App. 671, 236 S.W. 405; Smoot v. Riebel, Mo.App., 274 S.W. 522; Blackman v. Botsch, Mo.App., 281 S.W.2d 532, 535; Smith v. Rodick, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 73. It is likely that the jury was confused. It could well be argued that, since the credit of $367.80 was conceded by all parties, t......
-
Schulte v. Crites
...the theory on which the case was tried by the parties, as well as the instruction, and hence may not be allowed to stand. Smith v. Rodick, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 73; Cap-Keystone Printing Co. v. Tallman Co. Mo.App., 180 S.W.2d 802; Bigham v. Schneider, Mo.App., 157 S.W.2d 547; Weisels-Gerhardt......
-
Wilson v. Tonsing
...Willibald Schaefer Co. v. Blanton Co., Mo.App., 264 S.W.2d 920; Hamilton Fire Ins. Co. v. Cervantes, Mo.App., 278 S.W.2d 20; Smith v. Rodick, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 73; Stonefield v. Flynn, Mo.App., 347 S.W.2d 472), nevertheless, in this case it is seen that, actually, the money amounts of the......