Stetina v. Bergstein
| Decision Date | 07 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 15953.,15953. |
| Citation | 231 S.W. 1059 |
| Parties | STETINA v. BERGSTEIN. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from. St. Louis Circuit Court; Victor H. Falkenhainer, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Suit by Lillian Stetina against Charles Bergstein, administrator of Kathrine Zacek, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals (204 Mo. App. 366, 221 S. W. 420), but the record was quashed by the Supreme Court on certiorari (227 S. W. 47). Judgment affirmed.
Pierre A. Vogel, of St. Louis, for appellant. Harry G. Finley and Earl M. Pirkey, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
The record of this court in this case (204 Mo. App. 366, 221 S. W. 420) was quashed by way of certiorari (227 S. W. 47) and is now before us for final disposition in light of the said Supreme Court decision.
The suit originated as a claim filed in the probate court against the estate of Kathrine Zacek, deceased, which is as follows:
"St. Louis, Mo., May 23, 1916
Charles Bergstein, Administrator of the Estate of Kathrine Zacek, Deceased, to Lillian Stetina, Formerly Lillian Rezney, Dr.
To money loaned and advanced Kathrine
Zacek under a continuous open account on
various sums and amounts at various
times between November 1, 1909, and July
6, 1915 .................................. $1,900 00
Credits
By money repaid by said Kathrine Zacek in
various sums and amounts at various
times between November 1, 1909, and July
6, 1915 .................................. 700 00
_________
Balance due ............................ $1,200 00
Plaintiff's parents having died, she went to, live with her grandmother, Kathrine Zacek, in 1901. When plaintiff, in 1909, was fourteen years of age, she started to work.
Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that as she received her earnings she turned them over to her said grandmother, who, after providing the plaintiff with food, clothing, and shelter, was to account to plaintiff for any balance left in her hands. This arrangement continued until the plaintiff became of age and for about two years thereafter, at which time the said grandmother died.
In the probate court plaintiff's claim was allowed in the sum of $1,000, whereupon an appeal was taken to the circuit court, where the case was tried de novo to the court and a jury, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her claim in the sum of $700. The administrator in due course appeals.
It is assigned as error that the court permitted the plaintiff, over proper objection, to introduce certain evidence.
It appears that the plaintiff, for a period of over five years (1910 to 1915), worked for the Brown Shoe Company; that plaintiff sought to show by one of her witnesses, Mrs. Gatzer (who had been a bookkeeper at the Brown Shoe Company all the time that plaintiff worked for the said company), the total amount earned by the plaintiff while in the employ of the said company. Mrs. Gatzer testified that she made out the weekly payroll sheets, and that all of the amounts contained therein were then entered in the books of the company. The witness further testified as to the correctness of the entries in said books of the company, which books were in court and were offered for the inspection of counsel for defendant by plaintiff's attorney. The witness testified that she was familiar with the books of the Brown Shoe Company, that she had seen them made up, and that they were correct. She then testified that she had made an examination of the books to ascertain the total amount which according to the books had been earned by plaintiff during the five-year period of time when she worked for the Brown Shoe Company. The defendant objected "to this method of introducing the total," which objection was overruled and the witness permitted to testify that the total amount earned by plaintiff while in the employ of said company was $1,687.65. This action of the trial court in overruling defendant's objection is assigned as error.
It is apparent, from a reading of this record, that an introduction of each entry in the books in question, relative to plaintiff's payroll account with the Brown Shoe Company while she was in its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steffen v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co.
...Co., 260 S.W. 816; Schwall v. Higginsville Milling Co., 190 S.W. 959; Wright v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 940 S.W. 555; Stetina v. Bergstein, 231 S.W. 1059; Welch-Sandler v. Mullins, 31 S.W. (2d) 86; Jungkind Photo Supply Co. v. Yates, 257 S.W. 820; Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh, 18 S.W. 904;......
-
Steffen v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
... ... 816; Schwall v ... Higginsville Milling Co., 190 S.W. 959; Wright v ... Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 940 S.W. 555; Stetina v ... Bergstein, 231 S.W. 1059; Welch-Sandler v ... Mullins, 31 S.W.2d 86; Jungkind Photo Supply Co. v ... Yates, 257 S.W. 820; Anchor ... ...
-
Miller, Franklin & Co. v. Gentry
...by plaintiff's records kept in the usual course of business and properly identified. Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh, 108 Mo. 277; Stetina v. Bergstein, 231 S.W. 1059. L. Sheppard for respondent. Luke E. Hart of counsel. (1) Appellant had every right to adjudicate the matter involved in this co......
-
Welch-Sandler Cement Co. v. Mullins
...therein are correct, the books are properly identified even though such person did not make all the entries therein. Stetina v. Bergstein (Mo. App.) 231 S. W. 1059. It will be remembered that under section 5411, Rev. St. 1919, no disputed account may be allowed upon the oath of the party wh......