Snapp v. Ryder
| Decision Date | 29 July 1986 |
| Citation | 713 S.W.2d 630 |
| Parties | Richard SNAPP, Respondent, v. Alfred RYDER and Mary Ann Ryder, Appellants. WD 37494. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Parker, Bethany, for appellants.
Stockard, Andereck, Hauck, Sharp & Evans, Trenton, for respondent.
Before SHANGLER, P.J., and DIXON and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.
Defendants Mary Ann and Alfred Ryder appeal from an adverse jury verdict and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff Richard Snapp. Snapp sued in quantum meruit for payment due on custom farm work he allegedly performed in 1981 and 1982 on the Ryders' land located in Sullivan County. The Ryders counterclaimed, alleging Snapp failed to perform the 1981 work as agreed. The jury found for Snapp both on his claim and on the counterclaim. The counterclaim is not involved in this appeal.
The questions on appeal involve the prejudicial effect of evidence admitted concerning the Ryders' nonpayment of a soybean seed bill and plain error review of the trial court's allowing the jury to award interest on the judgment from the date of demand.
On appeal the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Hunter v. Norton, 412 S.W.2d 163, 165 (Mo.1967). In 1981, Snapp did custom farming for the Ryders. He submitted a bill to the Ryders in January, 1982 and received payment of $15,320. Snapp did not include combining he was currently engaged in when he submitted this bill.
Later in 1982, Mary Ann Ryder authorized Snapp to do additional custom farming. In 1983, Snapp submitted another bill to the Ryders for $22,432, itemized as follows:
500 acres of 1981 corn combined $ 9,000.00
60 acres of 1981 beans combined 1,080.00
490 acres 1982 discing 2,940.00
490 acres of 1982 second discing 2,940.00
490 acres 1982 planting 2,450.00
490 acres 1982 field cultivating 2,940.00
184 acres 1982 cultivating 920.00
27 acres chisel plowing 162.00
----------
TOTAL $22,432.00
The Ryders already had paid $15,000 toward satisfaction of this bill, leaving a balance owing of $7,432. Added to this amount was $4,534 for additional combining, hauling, and plowing. Thus the total amount owed by the Ryders to Snapp was $11,966.
The cause was submitted in quantum meruit for labor and services. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $11,150. As provided by Instruction No. 9 the jury also awarded interest of 9% from May 3, 1983, the date of Snapp's demand. The Ryders' first complaint about the submission of prejudgment interest comes by way of their brief and comprises their second point.
Their first point reads as follows:
The court erred in allowing Richard Snapp to testify over objection that Alfred Ryder had failed to pay for seed soybeans planted during the year 1982 for reason that such evidence was prejudicial to defendants by implying that Defendants failed to pay their accounts and that such evidence was not of probative value as to any issue contested at trial.
Reading the record concerning Snapp's testimony about nonpayment of the soybean bill makes understanding the point even more confusing. Snapp testified S & W Farm Supply, a company of which Snapp was a partner, sprayed the Ryder land in 1982 as well as supplied soybean seed for crops in 1982. The testimony regarding the spraying must be read in conjunction with that about the soybean seed in order to fashion some sense out of defendants' point:
[BEFORE THE JURY]
Q. [by Mr. Peace--Snapp's attorney] Now, who did some spraying on the Newtown property in 1982?
A. [by Snapp] S & W Farm Supply. Which hasn't got paid yet.
* * *
* * *
[BEFORE THE JURY]
Q. Mr. Parker questioned you about the soybeans for 1982, and who supplied those? Where did they come from?
A. S & W Farm Supply.
Q. Have those been paid for?
[A FEW QUESTIONS LATER BEFORE THE JURY]
Q. Did you have any soybeans there that the Ryders had provided?
A. No.
Q. Had you talked to Mrs. Ryder on the telephone about it?
A. Yes.
Q. What did she say in respect to the soybeans?
A. Well, she would get ahold of Alfred and let me know and ... finally she, you know, agreed to go ahead and have me pick them up there at Harris.
Q. And have you been paid for those?
A. No; along with the spray.
From the foregoing portion of the record, this court is left with the conclusion the Ryders got all the relief requested. The objections to both lines of questions were sustained. Counsel did not ask for the answers to be stricken. Nor do the Ryders now complain about the court's overruling the request for a mistrial.
Though the court indicated, out of the jury's hearing, it would permit the evidence concerning nonpayment of the beans to be admitted, the record shows the objections to this testimony were sustained and the line of questioning was effectively terminated.
For the sake of argument, even if the objections were overruled, the testimony was not prejudicial in light of the other evidence and the theory of the case. "Evidence is considered relevant if the fact it tends to establish tends in turn to prove or disprove a fact in issue, or to corroborate evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkes v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
...nothing for review on appeal. Mar-Kay Plastics, Inc. v. Alco Standard Corp., 825 S.W.2d 381, 384-85 (Mo.App.1992); Snapp v. Ryder, 713 S.W.2d 630, 632-33 (Mo.App.1986). KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ., concur. 1 Plaintiff did not include the challenged instruction in the argument portion of his brie......
-
Marti v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co.
...contentions that the first two paragraphs lacked evidentiary support. These points were not preserved for appeal. See Snapp v. Ryder, 713 S.W.2d 630, 632 (Mo.App.1986). Instructional error is not necessarily an automatic ground for reversal. Johnston v. Allis-Chalmers Corporation, 736 S.W.2......