State ex rel. Massman v. Bland

• Citation: 194 S.W.2d 42,355 Mo. 17
• Decision Date: 08 April 1946
• Docket Number: 39758
• Parties: State of Missouri at the Relation of H. J. Massman, Relator, v. Ewing C. Bland, Nick T. Cave, and Samuel A. Dew, Judges of the Kansas City Court of Appeals, and Lowell V. Crull
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

194 S.W.2d 42

355 Mo. 17

State of Missouri at the Relation of H. J. Massman, Relator, v. Ewing C. Bland, Nick T. Cave, and Samuel A. Dew, Judges of the Kansas City Court of Appeals, and Lowell V. Crull

No. 39758

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 8, 1946

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1946.

Original Proceeding in Certiorari.

Opinion of Court of Appeals quashed and judgment reversed.

Garrett & Ruark, Spurgeon L. Smithson and Walter A Raymond for relator.

(1) The court committed prejudicial and reversible error in admitting hearsay evidence of declarations of George R. Kelly, alleged to be defendant's agent, without preliminary proof of facts establishing such agency prima facie. The opinion of the Court of Appeals, to the contrary, conflicts with the controlling decisions cited under this point. Kurz v Greenlease Motor Co., 52 S.W.2d 498; State ex rel. Kurz v. Bland, 333 Mo. 941, 64 S.W.2d 638; Mechanics' American Natl. Bank v. Rowell, 182 S.W. 989; C.I.T. Corporation v. Hume, 48 S.W.2d 154; State ex rel. Steinbruegge v. Hostetter, 343 Mo. 341, 115 S.W.2d 802; Harpole v. Wunderlich, 230 Mo.App. 578, 93 S.W.2d 1104. (2) The court erred in admitting evidence as to declarations of the alleged agent, George R. Kelly, which were not part of the res gestae of defendant's business then being performed. The opinion of the Court of Appeals to the contrary conflicts with the controlling decisions cited under this point. Gaines v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 68 S.W.2d 905; Brantjen & Kluge v. Hunter, 235 Mo.App. 909, 145 S.W.2d 1009; Williams v. Gideon-Anderson Lumber Co., 224 S.W. 51; Austin-Western Road Mach. Co. v. Commercial State Bank, 255 S.W. 585; State ex rel. R. E. Funsten v. Becker, 318 Mo. 516, 1 S.W.2d 103; Shelton v. Wolf Cheese Co., 338 Mo. 1129, 93 S.W.2d 947; State ex rel. Kurz v. Bland, 333 Mo. 941, 645 S.W.2d 63; Atkinson v. American School of Osteopathy, 240 Mo. 338, 144 S.W. 816; Hartwig-Dischinger Realty Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 350 Mo. 690, 168 S.W.2d 78. (3) There was no competent and substantial evidence Mr. Kelly had express authority to engage in the sorghum-making enterprise as the agent and representative of the defendant. The opinion of the Court of Appeals holding such proof unnecessary conflicts with the controlling decisions cited under this point. 2 C.J.S. 1243; Neidt v. Neidt, 95 S.W.2d 866; Johnson v. American Ry. Express Co., 245 S.W. 1071; Miller v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 155 S.W.2d 324; Martin v. Springfield City Water Co., 128 S.W.2d 674; Brinker v. Miller, 162 S.W.2d 295. (4) There was no competent and substantial evidence of any implied agency of George R. Kelly for defendant Massman in the sorghum-making venture. The opinion of the Court of Appeals to the contrary conflicts with the controlling decisions cited under this point. Ross v. St. Louis Dairy Co., 339 Mo. 982, 98 S.W.2d 717; State ex rel. Steinbruegge v. Hostetter, 342 Mo. 341, 115 S.W.2d 802; Stevens Davis Co. v. Sid's Petroleum Corp., 157 S.W.2d 246; Dovino v. General American Life Ins. Co., 127 S.W.2d 732; State ex rel. R.E. Funsten Co. v. Becker, 318 Mo. 516, 1 S.W.2d 103; De Board v. Pendleton, 218 Mo.App. 54, 262 S.W. 393; Harpole v. Wunderlich, 230 Mo.App. 578, 93 S.W.2d 1104; Sowers v. Howard, 346 Mo. 10, 139 S.W.2d 897; Mulanix v. Reeves, 233 Mo.App. 143, 112 S.W.2d 100; Anderson v. Nagel, 214 Mo.App. 134, 259 S.W. 858; Marshall v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 184 S.W. 159; Renick v. Brooks, 190 S.W. 641; Vert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 342 Mo. 629, 117 S.W.2d 252; Corder v. Morgan Roofing Co., 350 Mo. 382, 166 S.W.2d 455; Taylor v. Sartorius, 130 Mo.App. 23, 108 S.W. 1089; Smith v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Assn., 231 Mo.App. 694, 104 S.W.2d 752; 2 Am. Jur., sec. 97; Bank of Ferguson v. Blick, 115 S.W.2d 27; Bennett v. Royal Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 232 Mo.App. 1027, 112 S.W.2d 134; Murphy v. Holliway, 223 Mo.App. 714, 16 S.W.2d 107; Chisholm v. Berg, 78 S.W.2d 486; Ellegood v. Brashear Freight Lines, 236 Mo.App. 971, 162 S.W.2d 628. (5) Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. The opinion of the Court of Appeals to the contrary conflicts with the controlling decisions cited under this point. Penny v. Southwestern Express Co., 35 S.W.2d 940; Bathe v. Morehouse Stave & Mfg. Co., 201 S.W. 925; Reynolds v. City Ice & Storage Co., 184 S.W. 934; Johnson v. Natl. Newspapers' Assn., 183 S.W. 1113; Johnson v. Bear, 40 S.W.2d 481; Allen v. Larabee Flour Mills Corp., 328 Mo. 226, 40 S.W.2d 597; Pietraschke v. Pollnow, 147 S.W.2d 167; Saversnick v. Schwarzschild & Sulzberger, 125 S.W. 1192; Braden v. Friederischen Floor & Wall Tile Co., 223 Mo.App. 700, 15 S.W.2d 923; Renick v. Brooks, 190 S.W. 641; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 304 Mo. 292, 263 S.W. 406; Elkin v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 335 Mo. 951, 74 S.W.2d 600; Miller v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 178 S.W.2d 824. (6) The trial court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction 1 submitting the issue of George R. Kelly's authority to represent defendant in the sorghum venture when there was no substantial evidence to sustain such issue. Clark v. Jackson, 342 Mo. 537, 116 S.W.2d 122.

John B. Moritz, Cowgill & Popham and Sam Mandell for respondents.

(1) Since Mr. Kelly had been placed in full charge of the Massman farm and all of its operations by Mr. Massman, and was given full power to hire employees for the farm and to direct them in their work, and since he used Massman farm labor and equipment in erecting the sorghum mill and used Massman farm labor and equipment in taking the cane to the sorghum mill, and used that same labor and equipment to cut cane on the Embry farm and take it to the Massman farm where it was stored in Massman silos, and since he directed the employees on the Massman farm to work on the Massman farm and then ordered them to work on the Embry farm and then ordered them to return to the Massman farm for more work on that farm, Mr. Kelly had apparent authority to order Mr. Crull to work on the sorghum mill for Mr. Massman. Koewing v. Greene County B. & L. Assn., 327 Mo. 680, 38 S.W.2d 40; F.A. Fay & Egan Co. v. Brown Machinery Co., 14 S.W.2d 491; Farm & Home Savs. & L. Assn. v. Stubbs, 231 Mo.App. 87, 98 S.W.2d 320; Meux v. Heller, 162 S.W. 688; Berkson v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 144 Mo. 211, 45 S.W. 1119; Hull v. Jones, 69 Mo. 587; Wade v. Boone, 184 Mo.App. 88, 168 S.W. 360; Hackett v. Van Frank, 105 Mo.App. 384, 79 S.W. 1013. (2) The relationship of master and servant is contractual and since the record shows that Mr. Kelly was authorized to hire plaintiff to work for Mr. Massman, and did hire him to work for Mr. Massman, the contractual relationship thus established between Mr. Massman and Mr. Crull continued to exist until abrogated by either one of them; on this record no abrogation was shown and the legal relationship of master and servant between them continued as a matter of law and Mr. Kelly could not become plaintiff's employer without the express knowledge and consent of the latter. Maltz v. Jackoway-Katz Cap Co., 336 Mo. 1000, 82 S.W.2d 909; Flori v. Dolph, 192 S.W. 949; Reeder v. St. Joseph Lead Co., 260 S.W. 550; Asch v. Washburn Lignite Coal Co., 48 N.D. 734, 186 N.W. 757; Bowie v. Coffin Valve Co., 200 Mass. 571, 86 N.E. 914; Barney v. Anderson, 116 Wash. 352, 199 P. 452; 39 C.J., p. 36; Shearman & Redfield, Law of Negligence (1941), sec. 188. (3) Mr. Massman, through Kelly, did not relinquish full control over his servant Crull, the plaintiff, when the latter was working on the Embry farm, and so the legal relationship of master and servant between Mr. Massman and the plaintiff continued in force. McFarland v. Dixie Machinery & Equipment Co., 348 Mo. 341, 153 S.W.2d 67; O'Brien v. Rindskopf, 334 Mo. 1233, 70 S.W.2d 1085; Roman v. Hendricks, 80 S.W.2d 907; Garven v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 100 Mo.App. 617, 75 S.W. 193. (4) There was substantial evidence from which the jury might find that Mr. Kelly had implied, if not actual, authority to engage in the sorghum-making enterprise as agent of Mr. Massman. Thimmig v. General Talking Pictures Corp., 85 S.W.2d 208; Bedel v. Parker-Russell Min. & Mfg. Co., 21 S.W.2d 932; Dougherty v. Spuck Iron & Foundry Co., 175 S.W.2d 45. (5) The admissions of relator and other independent evidence in the record prima facie showed agency of George R. Kelly for the relator, and since such showing was made any declarations made by the agent in the prosecution of, and relative to the business contemplated by, such agency are admissible against the principal. Adams v. Carlo, 184 S.W. 682; State ex rel. Kurz v. Bland, 333 Mo. 941, 64 S.W.2d 638; Peck v. Ritchey, 66 Mo. 114. (6) The declarations of George R. Kelly complained of by relator under his Point (2) were a part of the res gestae, were admissible as corroborative and cumulative evidence to the showing of agency which had already been independently made, and were admissible as circumstantial evidence to the existence of the relevant and material facts that Mr. Kelly performed those acts on behalf of the relator for which he was employed. Royle Mining Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 161 Mo.App. 185, 142 S.W. 438; Porter v. Withers Estate Co., 201 Mo.App. 27, 210 S.W. 109; Adams v. Carlo, 184 S.W.2d 682; State ex rel. Kurz v. Bland, 333 Mo. 941, 64 S.W.2d 638; Peck v. Ritchey, 66 Mo. 114; Mattan v. Hoover Co., 350 Mo. 506, 166 S.W.2d 557. (7) Plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. State ex rel. Thompson v. Shain, 349 Mo. 1075, 163 S.W.2d 967; Jewell v. Bolt & Nut Co., 231 Mo. 176, 132 S.W. 703; Edmondson v. Hotels Statler Co., 306 Mo. 216, 267 S.W. 612; Whittington v. Westport Hotel Operating Co., 326 Mo. 1117, 33 S.W.2d 963. (8) Plaintiff's Instruction 1 was properly given.

OPINION

Clark, C.J.

In the...