State v. Mix

Decision Date05 June 1928
Docket NumberNo. 20435.,20435.
Citation7 S.W.2d 290
PartiesSTATE ex rel. MACON CREAMERY CO. v. MIX, Circuit Judge.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Bryan, Williams & Cave, of St. Louis, for relator.

Jeffries, Simpson & Plummer, of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, C.

This is a proceeding in prohibition. Upon the filing of the petition, the provisional writ of this court issued. The cause has been submitted here upon the respondent's demurrer to the petition.

The relator, Macon Creamery Company, charges in its petition here:

That on the 12th day of August, 1927, there was filed in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, by the National City Bank of St. Louis, a petition, which (omitting caption and signature) is as follows, to wit:

"Now comes the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause and for its cause of action states that it is and was at all the times herein mentioned a banking corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States of America, with its principal office and place of business in the city of St. Louis, Mo.; that defendants are both corporations, duly organized and existing according to law; that the defendant Macon Creamery Company has its principal office and place of business in the county of Macon, state of Missouri; and that defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company has its principal Missouri office and place of business in the city of St. Louis, Mo.

"Plaintiff states that on or about August 6, 1927, defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company purchased certain goods, wares, and merchandise from defendant Macon Creamery Company and agreed to pay therefor by honoring sight drafts drawn by said defendant Macon Creamery Company on it as drawee; that the said drafts were to be drawn for the amounts agreed upon to be paid for the said merchandise; that the said drafts were to be paid as a satisfaction of the indebtedness existing on account of the purchase of said merchandise, and were to be paid upon presentation to it of said sight drafts.

"Plaintiff further states that pursuant to said understanding, arrangement, and agreement between defendants, defendant Macon Creamery Company, on or about August 6, 1927, drew its sight draft dated Macon, Mo., August 6, 1927, in the sum of $3,933, payable to the order of Farmers' Trust Company of Macon, as payee, and upon the Kroger Grocery & Baking Company, care of American Trust Company, St. Louis, Mo., as drawee therein; that on or about August ____, 1927, defendant Macon Creamery Company duly indorsed said draft and sold, assigned, and transferred the same for value to the Farmers' Trust Company of Macon, payee therein; that a duly verified copy of said draft is hereto attached, marked Exhibit A. That pursuant to said understanding, arrangement, and agreement between defendants, defendant Macon Creamery Company, on or about August 9, 1927, drew its sight draft dated Macon, Mo., August 9, 1927, in the sum of $3,488.40, payable to the order of Farmers' Trust Company of Macon, as payee, and upon the Kroger Grocery & Baking Company, care of American Trust Company, St. Louis, Mo., as drawee therein; that on or about August ____, 1927, defendant Macon Creamery Company duly indorsed said draft and sold, assigned, and transferred the same for value to the Farmers' Trust Company of Macon, payee therein; that a duly verified copy of said draft is hereto attached marked Exhibit B.

"Plaintiff further states that both of said above-mentioned drafts were duly indorsed, sold, assigned, transferred, and delivered, for value, by the Farmers' Trust Company of Macon, payee therein, to this plaintiff; that plaintiff thereupon in due course became the holder and owner of said drafts, for value, and has ever since continued to be the holder and owner thereof.

"Plaintiff further states that defendant Macon Creamery Company duly complied with all of the terms of its contract with defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company with reference to the furnishing of the goods and merchandise agreed to be furnished under said above-mentioned arrangement, and duly furnished all of the goods and merchandise of the amounts and value stated in the above-mentioned sight drafts; that defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company duly accepted all of said goods and merchandise as being in accordance with said above-mentioned contract, and now has and retains the same in its possession as owner thereof.

"Plaintiff further states that immediately after the receipt thereof and in due course, plaintiff presented or caused to be presented the above-mentioned sight drafts to defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company for payment, and was advised by said defendant that the goods called for therein had not been received, and that if said drafts would be held for a short period of time until the goods arrived the same would be paid.

"Plaintiff further states that said goods were received by defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company, as heretofore stated, prior to the failure of the Farmers' Trust Company as hereinafter alleged.

"Plaintiff upon information coming to it is advised that on or about the ____ day of August, 1927, the Farmers' Trust Company of Macon, Mo., was placed in the hands of the commissioner of finance of the state of Missouri, who is now in charge of said bank for that purpose; that after the arrival and receipt by defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company of the above-mentioned goods and merchandise, the said above-mentioned drafts were again presented to it for payment, but said defendant refused to pay the same, stating as its reason therefor that it had been requested by defendant Macon Creamery Company to dishonor said drafts and to refuse to pay the same and to remit the amounts of money called for therein to the said Macon Creamery Company direct, and to refuse to pay the same to the holder and owner of said drafts; that under and pursuant to the above-mentioned arrangements, contract, and agreements existing between them, defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company was obligated to accept and pay the face amount of the drafts heretofore described and had informed plaintiff of its said agreement and had agreed to pay the same as above alleged.

"Plaintiff further states that for the purpose of protecting the said Macon Creamery Company against any loss on account of its deposits in and with said Farmers' Trust Company at the time of the closing thereof, and notwithstanding said agreements and undertakings, defendant, at the request of Macon Creamery Company, acquiesced in by Kroger Grocery & Baking Company, agreed together that defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company would dishonor said drafts and refuse to pay the same, and that upon the dishonor of said drafts said defendant would pay the amount thereof to defendant Macon Creamery Company, and that by virtue of said understanding and agreement between the said parties, defendant Macon Creamery Company knew that the drawee in said drafts would not honor the same and said defendant Macon Creamery Company was not entitled to notice of the presentment for payment of said drafts to defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company, their dishonor, and notice; that the holder would look to the other parties upon said drafts for payment thereof.

"Plaintiff further states that by reason of the matters and things heretofore alleged and by virtue of the agreement existing between defendants, the said drafts heretofore mentioned were to be given and received by the parties thereto in full payment, satisfaction, and discharge of the claims for merchandise heretofore mentioned; that the execution and delivery of said drafts and the purchase thereof by plaintiff constituted an equitable assignment to the plaintiff of the claims existing on behalf of the Macon Creamery Company against the Kroger Grocery & Baking Company for the merchandise heretofore mentioned, and plaintiff became upon the purchase of said drafts entitled as assignee to the money due upon said claims from defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company.

"Plaintiff further states that defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company has not yet paid the defendant Macon Creamery Company the above-mentioned amounts, but is threatening to make said payment, and has stated to plaintiff that said payment would be made immediately.

"Plaintiff states that it has no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, and unless defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company is enjoined from making said payments to defendant Macon Creamery Company plaintiff will be deprived of its substantial rights in collecting said money from defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company, and that it will be irreparably injured and damaged by reason thereof.

"Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants in the sum of $7,421.40; that defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company be enjoined and restrained from paying any of the money due upon the above-mentioned drafts, or for the merchandise represented thereby, to defendant Macon Creamery Company; and that defendant Macon Creamery Company be enjoined and restrained from accepting or receiving the same from defendant Kroger Grocery & Baking Company until the further order of this court, and for such other judgments, orders, and decrees in the premises as to the court shall seem meet and proper."

That thereafter said cause was transferred to Division No. 2 of said circuit court, which is presided over by Hon. Moses Hartmann. That on said 12th day of August, 1927, a summons was issued by the clerk of said circuit court, directed to the sheriff of Macon county, Mo., commanding said sheriff to summon relator, which summons (omitting signature and formal parts) is as follows:

"We command you to summon Macon Creamery Company, a corporation, to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State ex rel. Macon Creamery Co. v. Mix
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1928
  • Edwards Land & Timber Co. v. Richards
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1942
    ...a corporation is joined with other defendants jurisdiction of its person may be obtained as in actions against individuals. State ex rel. v. Mix, 7 S.W.2d 290; State Davis, 314 Mo. 373; Bente v. Remington, 116 Mo.App. 77. (5) The court having heretofore found that respondents were not estop......
  • Liechty v. Kansas City Bridge Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1942
    ...v. Commercial Bank, Mo.App., 238 S.W. 833; State ex rel. Columbia Nat. Bank v. Davis, 314 Mo. 373, 284 S.W. 464; State ex rel. Macon Creamery Co. v. Mix, 222 Mo.App. 426, 7 S. W.2d 290; State ex rel. C. H. Atkinson Paving Co. v. Aronson, 345 Mo. 937, 138 S.W. 2d "In her petition plaintiff a......
  • Liechty v. Kansas City Bridge Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 1941
    ...Commercial Bank, Mo.App., 238 S.W. 833; State ex rel. Columbia Nat. Bank v. Davis, 314 Mo. 373, 284 S.W. 464; State ex rel. Macon Creamery Co. v. Mix, 222 Mo.App. 426, 7 S.W.2d 290; State ex rel. C. H. Atkinson Paving Co. v. Aronson, 345 Mo. 937, 138 S.W.2d In her petition plaintiff alleged......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT