State ex rel. Myers v. Mathieson
| Decision Date | 03 May 1921 |
| Citation | 232 S.W. 181,207 Mo.App. 676 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. W. E. MYERS, Appellant, v. R. B. MATHIESON, et al., Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court.--Hon. Chas. L. Henson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
M. R Lively for appellant.
(1) One whose legal right has been violated is entitled to recover at least nominal damages though no actual damages are shown. King v. City of St. Louis, 250 Mo. 501; Rourke v. Holmes Ry. Co., 181 S.W. 77; Tracy v Buchanan, 167 Mo.App. 432; Lambert v. Judge & Dolph Drug Co., 119 Mo.App. 693. (2) The evidence establishes a breach of bond and a legal right violated and actual damages, but the jury refused to follow the law or evidence and denied relator a verdict on his cause of action. The court should have directed a verdict for relator. Missouri Real Estate Syndicate v. Sims, 121 Mo.App. 166; Tracy v. Buchanan, 167 Mo.App. 432; The State ex rel. v. McHale, 16 Mo.App. 480-481. (3) The defect may be taken advantage of by objection to introduction of evidence as in case at bar. Labodie v. Maguire, 6 Mo.App. 573; Dawson v. Quillian, 61 Mo.App. 672; Lambert et al. v. Hagedorn, 196 S.W. 85. (4) Plaintiff made timely objection, A. of R., pages 29-40. The account must be stated with sufficient definiteness to preclude a subsequent action thereon, and by motion to strike out part of answer. Nelson Mfg. Company v. Mitchell, 38 Mo.App. 321. (5) If any pleading is founded on any instrument of writing charged to have been executed by the other party, etc., and not lost or destroyed, the same or a copy thereof verified, shall be filed with the petition, etc. Section 1270, R. S. 1919; Gene v. Hanszen, 85 Mo.App. 136. (6) Party cannot plead one cause of action and recover on another. Reed v. Batt, 100 Mo. 62; Chamber v. Planters Hotel Co., 155 Mo.App. 144.
Moore, Barrett & Moore for respondents.
(1) At the outset, this court as well as was the trial court, confronted with a petition that fails to state a cause of action, no where alleging non-payment of the damages sustained by the attachment. State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 137 Mo.App. 261. (2) To maintain this action, appellant was bound to assert and prove his absolute ownership of the poles, and his damages by reason of their wrongful attachment. State ex rel. v. Lichtman, 184 Mo.App. 225. (3) A debtor's consent to an attachment is not only a complete defense to an action for wrongful attachment, but is binding upon a firm where one member councils and advises same, and bars recovery. 6, C. J., page 511, par. 1220; Barker v. Abbott, 21 S.W. 72; Thames v. Schloss, 120 Ala. 470, 24 So. 835. (4) An action on bonds in attachment are ex contractu and not ex delicto. Therefore the indebtedness of appellant to respondent Mathison, could be pleaded by Mathison as a set-off or counterclaim in this action. State ex rel. v. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 135 Mo.App. 160, 165-66. (5) And the doctrine of counterclaim under the statutes if the same rises out of the same transaction or connected with the subject of the action, it matters not that one be legal, the other equitable, one be ex contractu the other ex delicto. Finney v. Raudabaugh, 182 Mo.App. 246. (6) The counterclaim of Mathison was definite and certain enough to prevent another action for the same thing. This was sufficient. Nelson Mfg. Co. v. Mitchell, 38 Mo.App. 321, 328. Instruction five is proper. State ex rel. Russell v. Fargo, 151 Mo. 280; State to use of Hayden v. McHale, 16 Mo.App. 478.
This is an action on an attachment bond. On trial below before the court and a jury judgment went in favor of defendants on the bond suit and in favor of defendant Mathieson on his set-off. From the judgment rendered, relator appealed.
We will hereafter refer to relator as plaintiff. A fair statement of the facts which gave occasion for the present cause will be found is Mathewson v. Larson-Myers Co., 217 S.W. 609. Defendants challenge the petition, but they filed no demurrer or motion, and in the present situation the petition is sufficient. Defendants Easterday and Crowder, sureties on the attachment bond, filed a general denial. Defendant, Mathieson, admitted the execution of the attachment bond, and denied generally other allegations. He further alleged by way of defense that the attachment suit was commenced against Larson-Myers Co. at the suggestion and on the advice of plaintiff, Myers, who, he alleges, prevailed upon him to bring that action, and that by reason thereof plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this cause. He alleges that in the cause against Larson-Myers Co. he obtained a judgment for $ 525 for which both Larson and plaintiff are obligated to pay, but that no part of said judgment has been paid. He further alleged that plaintiff, Myers, was individually indebted to him in the sum of $ 150 with interest from October, 1916, amounting to $ 177, and that no part of this had been paid, and asked judgment for the $ 150 with interest. Plaintiff moved to strike out all that portion of the answer relating to his advice about the attachment, the judgment, and the $ 150 account. This motion was overruled. While defendant mentioned the judgment in his favor in his suit against the partnership, he did not ask that it be considered as a set-off or counterclaim.
The only property seized, under the attachment writ, in which plaintiff had any interest was 138 cedar electric light poles. The evidence shows that these poles belonged to Larson and plaintiff Myers, but plaintiff says that while they belonged to himself and Larson that they were not the property of the partnership; that he and Larson bought the poles with the idea of organizing a company and putting in a light plant, but had not done so. The evidence tended to show that these poles when attached were worth about $ 500, and when finally released and sold they brought $ 225. Plaintiff claims to have paid out $ 42.50 for railroad fare and hotel bills for himself and his attorney, and $ 100 attorney fee in connection with the suit against the partnership. The plea in abatement and the merits in the attachment suit were tried on the same day and plaintiff was not certain what proportion of the items mentioned were incurred in each wing of the case--the plea in abatement and the merits.
Plaintiff makes many assignments, but only two need be considered. First, was plaintiff entitled to a directed verdict for at least nominal damages, and second, is defendant Mathieson's claim for $ 150 a proper matter for set-off in this cause? The attachment had been dissolved, and therefore, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial