Steinburg v. Levy

• Decision Date: 03 January 1922
• Docket Number: No. 16826.,16826.
• Parties: STEINBURG v. LEVY et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

236 S.W. 909

STEINBURG v. LEVY et al.

No. 16826.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 3, 1922.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; George H. Shields, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Edward W. Steinburg, against Herman Levy and Isadore Levy, copartners doing business as Levy Bros. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Harry Felberbaum, of St. Louis, for appellants.

George W. Wellman, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BRUERE, C.

This suit is brought to recover damages accrued on account of the conversion by defendants of certain household furniture belonging to the plaintiff. Plaintiff also asked judgment for exemplary or punitive damages for the willful, wrongful, and malicious taking of the property. The answer was a general denial. At a trial a jury awarded plaintiff both actual and punitive damages. From a judgment on that verdict, defendants appeal.

The facts are these: The defendants were copartners, engaged in dealing in secondhand furniture in the city of St. Louis, Mo. On the 10th day of February, 1919, plaintiff and his wife were living at 2837 Miami street in said city. On said day they had some misunderstanding, the result being that the wife became angry at her husband and left hint On the day following she requested the defendants to give her a price on her husband's household furniture, which was located at said 2837 Miami street. The defendants offered her $100 therefor, which offer she accepted. Thereupon, on the 12th day of February, 1919, the defendants paid her $100 and removed the furniture from plaintiff's home to their place of business. The sale was made without the authority of the plaintiff and without his knowledge or consent. On the 13th day of February, 1919, plaintiff located the furniture at defendants' place of business while it was still loaded on their wagon. He informed the defendants that it belonged to him, and demanded its return; whereupon defendants told him that they did not care who it belonged to, that they had bought it, and did not intend to give it up. On the 15th day of February, 1919, plaintiff again requested the defendants to surrender the furniture, which they again refused to do. On the 17th of February, 1919, plaintiff again demanded its return, whereupon the defendants advised him that they had sold the greater part of it, and that if he would pay them $110 he could have what was left. This gracious offer plaintiff refused, and thereafter defendants also disposed of said portion of the furniture.

The errors urged here relate to the action of the court in admitting testimony, in giving and refusing instructions, in making certain remarks to the jury and that the verdict is excessive.

Defendants contend that the court, committed error in admitting the testimony of Mr. McFessel and Mr. Goebel, witnesses for the plaintiff. These witnesses were allowed to testify regarding the value of the furniture in question. Defendants objected to their testimony on the ground that they had not seen the furniture, and for that reason were not qualified to give their opinion as to its value.

The evidence shows that, though these witnesses had not seen the furniture in question, they were experienced furniture men and were thoroughly acquainted with the value of like furniture. The evidence further shows that each piece of furniture was numbered, and that they were able to identify each piece by Its number and definitely give its value. We think the ruling of the court was proper. Harris v. Q., C. & X. C. Ry. Co., 115 Mo. App. loc. cit. 533, 91 S. W. 1010; K. C. Sub. Belt Hy. Co. v. Norcross, 137 Mo. 431, 38 S. W. 299.

Contention is made that error was committed in submitting to the jury the question of punitive damages. In support of that contention defendants urge that there is no evidence in this case warranting an instruction on punitive damages.

The evidence discloses that the defendants disposed of plaintiff's property intentionally, wrongfully, without cause or excuse. They knew the property belonged to the plaintiff when they sold it, and that it was wrongful for them to dispose of it. Their conduct was most high-handed and oppressive in demanding a payment of $100 before consenting to return even a small part of plaintiff's property; they acted from an evil motive, causelessly, oppressively, and in reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights. The circumstances attending the conversion of the furniture were such as to call forth the rule...