Steckel v. Swift & Co.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 21949.,21949. |
| Citation | 56 S.W.2d 806 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STECKEL v. SWIFT & CO. et al. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Scotland County; Walter A. Higbee, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by W. J. Steckel, individually and as trustee, against Swift & Co. and another. From a judgment denying plaintiff's motion to set aside an involuntary nonsuit as to named defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
F. D. Wilkins, of Louisiana, Mo., Rendlen, White & Rendlen, of Hannibal, and Luther & Luther, of Memphis, for appellants.
Smoot & Smoot, of Memphis, Mahan, Mahan & Fuller, of Hannibal, and Myers & Snerly, of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
This is an action in trover for the alleged conversion of certain cattle claimed to have been covered by a chattel mortgage. The action is brought by the mortgagee, and the defendants are, respectively, the purchaser and one of the mortgagors.
The plaintiff mortgagee (for in reality there is but a single party plaintiff) is one W. J. Steckel, who is engaged in the banking business at Bloomfield, Iowa, some little distance north of the northern boundary line of Missouri. His name also appears in the caption as "W. J. Steckel, Trustee," because it was in the capacity of trustee that he was designated in the chattel mortgage. The defendant mortgagor is Lawrence F. Sloop, a farmer and stock dealer, who lives in Scotland county, Mo., the venue of this action. The defendant purchaser is Swift & Co., an Illinois corporation, which is engaged in the meat packing business in Illinois, Missouri, and other states.
For some time prior to the execution of the chattel mortgage in question, Sloop and Steckel had been acquainted and had had business dealings together; Steckel having theretofore made certain loans to Sloop which were secured by deeds of trust or mortgages on farm lands in Missouri owned by Sloop and his wife. On November 25, 1922, Sloop and his wife again called upon Steckel at his bank in Bloomfield, Iowa, and negotiated a loan of $1,900, evidenced by a promissory note given over both their signatures, made payable at Steckel's bank on or before November 1, 1923, and bearing interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum. The other provisions of the note were the usual and customary ones to be found in Iowa forms, so counsel state in the briefs, and there is no contention of the illegality of the note, or of any of its provisions, as an Iowa contract.
Contemporaneously with the execution of the note, and as security for it, Sloop and his wife executed the chattel mortgage under and by virtue of which Steckel claims his lien upon the cattle subsequently sold by Sloop to Swift & Co. The mortgage provided that it covered, among other things, all the live stock which the Sloops then owned, or which they might thereafter acquire with money furnished under the mortgage, and attached thereto and made a part thereof was a memorandum showing the cattle then owned by the Sloops to consist of one hundred head of 1922 calves, twenty cows of ages from 3 to 7 years, and one bull about 5 years of age. The mortgage recited that the cattle were being kept on various farms located in Adair, Knox, and Scotland counties, Mo., and particularly described as to location, though it was made to cover the property described and referred to therein wherever kept or found. There was a further provision that the Sloops as mortgagors should take care of and preserve the mortgaged property in good condition, and that they should have no authority or right to dispose of any of such property without the written consent of the mortgagee.
Not only was the chattel mortgage made to cover after-acquired property, as has heretofore appeared, but it also provided that it was given to secure any existing indebtedness or further loans or advances then due or to become due from the mortgagors or either of them to the mortgagee or his beneficiaries. Such latter provision, however, is now of no particular moment.
The mortgage was executed and acknowledged before a notary public of the state of Iowa, and subsequently was filed for record in the counties of Knox, Scotland, and Adair, in the state of Missouri, where the mortgaged property was kept.
The sale of cattle to Swift & Co., which is the basis for Steckel's claim of conversion, occurred on August 18, 1924. The sale was made in the city of Chicago, and was handled by H. D. Copeland & Co., a live stock commission firm, for the account of Sloop and one P. L. Klein, whose connection with the matter will be hereinafter discussed. Payment of the net proceeds of the sale was made to the People's Bank of Queen City, Mo., with a direction that the proceeds should go to Klein.
It is of importance to bear in mind that the cattle sold to Swift & Co. at the time in question consisted of thirty-seven steers and one stag, and were none of the cattle in Sloop's possession at the time of the execution of the chattel mortgage to Steckel, nor were they the increase of those cattle. The thirty-seven steers had been purchased by Sloop from Klein in the fall of 1923, approximately a year after the execution of the mortgage to Steckel, and the stag from one Phelps in January, 1924; and all of such cattle were described in and covered by a chattel mortgage for $6,100, executed by Sloop to Klein in connection with the transaction. It was in satisfaction of such purchase price mortgage that the proceeds of the sale to Swift & Co. were directed to be paid to Klein at the Queen City bank.
It was undisputed that Steckel at no time had taken possession of the cattle sold to Swift & Co., nor had he attempted to exercise any dominion over them; that they were at all times in Sloop's possession on one of his Missouri farms from the time he purchased them until the time of their sale to Swift & Co., and had never been in Iowa; and that Swift & Co. had no actual knowledge of the existence of Steckel's mortgage, nor, for that matter, did it know to whom the cattle belonged at the time of making the purchase through the commission firm.
On August 7, 1929, the present cause was instituted, and summons was issued for and service had upon both Sloop and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisdom v. Keithley
... ... Cassidy, 71 Mo.App. 186, 196; Shapard v. Hynes, ... 104 F. 449, 452; Finance Service Corp. v. Kelly, 235 ... S.W. 146; Steckel v. Swift & Co., 56 S.W.2d 806, ... 808; Parker-Harris Co. v. Stephens, 205 Mo.App. 373, ... 224 S.W. 1036; Associated Investors Co. v ... ...
-
Woelfle v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
... ... v. United States (2nd Cir.), 6 F.2d 364; St. Clair ... v. United States, 154 U.S. 134; Swift v. Short, ... 92 F. 567; Hays v. Tacoma R. & P. Co. (Wash.), 106 ... F. 48; Tacoma Pl. & P. Co. v. Hays, 110 F. 496; ... Beavers v. United ... [State v. Bowen, supra ; State ... v. Burks, supra ; Fesler v. [234 Mo.App ... 151] Hunter (Mo. App.), 35 S.W.2d 641; Steckel ... v. Swift & Co. (Mo. App.), 56 S.W.2d 806, 808; 70 C. J ... 1042, 1153.] ... The ... reason which is given for thus ... ...
-
Fawkes v. National Refining Co.
...the admission of one is not binding against another. [See City of St. Louis ex rel. v. Clark (Mo. App.), 35 S.W.2d 986; Steckel v. Swift & Co. (Mo. App.), 56 S.W.2d 806; C. J., secs 402 and 405.] Plaintiff also contends that the court erred in refusing her peremptory instruction on the addi......
-
Elms v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
...Vest v. S. S. Kresge Co., Mo.App., 213 S.W. 165, 167(3); Saunders v. Prue, 235 Mo.App. 1245, 151 S.W.2d 478, 481(10); Steckel v. Swift & Co., Mo.App., 56 S.W.2d 806, 808(4); Davis v. Sedalia Yellow Cab Co., Mo.App., 280 S.W.2d 869, 871(3); 20 Am.Jur. 540, Evidence, Sec. 640. And see Tenniso......