Southern Hotel Co. v. Chouteau

• Decision Date: 31 October 1873
• Citation: 53 Mo. 572
• Parties: SOUTHERN HOTEL CO., Plaintiff in Error, v. GABRIEL S. CHOUTEAU, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

53 Mo. 572

SOUTHERN HOTEL CO., Plaintiff in Error,

v.GABRIEL S. CHOUTEAU, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1873.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.

A. J. P. Garesche, for Plaintiff in Error.

T. T. Gantt, for Defendant in Error.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action brought to recover of defendant a subscription, made by him in conjunction with several others, to secure the completion of the building of the Southern Hotel.

The petition in substance alleges, that defendant, by his agreement to secure the completion of the Southern Hotel, stipulated and agreed to pay James H. Lucas one thousand dollars as a bonus, to induce him to undertake the completion of this hotel in such manner as might be determined by the Board of Directors of the hotel and said Lucas, the completion being regarded as a great public improvement, redounding to the interest of St. Louis capitalists, of which class defendant was one. There is, then, an averment that Lucas thereupon entered into an agreement with the Board of Directors of the hotel company, whereby Lucas secured the completion of the hotel, and in accordance therewith, the same was built and finished, and Lucas assigned to plaintiff the said sum of $1,000 subscribed by defendant.

The answer admits, that defendant made a subscription of $1,000 as a bonus to induce James H. Lucas to undertake the completion of the Southern Hotel in St. Louis, but says, that Lucas never did undertake the completion of the hotel, and was never induced by the subscription of the defendant to undertake the same, and that, on the contrary thereof, after entering into some negotiations with the plaintiff having reference to the undertaking, he wholly abandoned and gave up all intention and purpose of undertaking the completion of the same, and, with the consent of the plaintiff, turned over to other persons all the unfinished contracts and negotiations then pending between him and the hotel company, all of which was done without the consent or approval of defendant, who was no party to the abandonment and surrender of the completion by Lucas.

The replication denied, that Lucas abandoned the completion of the building, or that the assignment by him was without the consent or approval of the defendant.

At the trial, the plaintiff introduced in evidence a subscription paper signed by the defendant, with others, wherein it is stated: “We, the undersigned, agree to pay James H. Lucas the amount set opposite our names, as a bonus to induce him to undertake the completion of the Southern Hotel, in such manner as may be determined by the Board of Directors and Mr. Lucas.” The assignment of the subscription paper was then given in evidence, which, after reciting its terms, continued: “Whereas, divers persons have heretofore subscribed various sums of money to...