Steele v. Ancient Order of Pyramids
| Decision Date | 20 May 1907 |
| Parties | ALICE STEELE, Respondent, v. ANCIENT ORDER OF PYRAMIDS et al., Defendants; WILLIAM E. BIRNEY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Wm. B. Teasdale, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Noyes Heath & Walls, for appellant, filed an argument.
James Fairweather, for respondent, filed no briefs.
This action was begun before a justice of the peace. It was appealed to the circuit court where plaintiff had judgment. The action is based on the two following papers filed with the justice on May 31, 1904, as follows:
The trial court gave a peremptory instruction to find for all of the defendants except Birney and as to him the case was submitted to a jury. We regard the two pieces of paper as constituting one statement of plaintiff's cause of action and that it is sufficient, as such, before a justice of the peace. It plainly states what the action is for and does not lack in clearness to, in any degree, justify a claim that it could not be understood. When figures are given in such connection that the meaning is unmistakable that dollars and cents were meant, it is not absolutely necessary that a dollar mark be prefixed to such figures. But if it were, such dollar mark does appear in one statement of the total sum charged. The case of Moffitt West Drug Co. v Johnson, 80 Mo.App. 428, and cases therein cited do not sustain defendant's criticism of the present statement.
The refusal of the trial court to sustain a demurrer to the evidence is the only question of moment in the case. Plaintiff stated in her testimony in her own behalf that the making of the robes was done for the Ancient Order of Pyramids and that defendant Birney did not owe her personally. But she was evidently unacquainted with the legal effect or meaning of forms of expression and it is by no means clear that she intended to say that her claim was not against the defendant. By taking parts of her testimony disconnected from other parts, it seems clear that her claim is against the order and not the defendant, who was an officer of such order. But other portions of her testimony show that defendant employed her. She stated that her own labor was to be without charge, but that the money she paid out for assistance, etc., was to be repaid her. As appears on page eight of the abstract, she stated that defendant Birney and others told her that they would see that she got her money back, and that that was the employment she had for doing the work. She was asked that, "If any one owes you anything, it is the Kansas City Council No. 1?" But she would not say so. There is no question but that the officers of the lodge employed her and the only matter to determine was whether Birney as one of them made himself liable. We believe it was proper to submit the whole evidence to...
To continue reading
Request your trial