Thomas v. DeGrace

Decision Date19 September 1989
Docket NumberNo. WD,WD
CitationThomas v. DeGrace, 776 S.W.2d 500 (Mo. App. 1989)
PartiesWalter THOMAS, et ux, Appellants, v. Rosalie DeGRACE, Respondent. 41358.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

John R. Campbell, Kansas City, for appellants.

Lester E. Adams, Jr., Browning, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

KENNEDY, Judge.

Walter Thomas and his wife, Phileda L. Thomas, sued Rosalie DeGrace for damages for breach of contract and for fraudulent misrepresentation.At the close of all the evidence at the trial, Judge Gray directed a verdict in DeGrace's favor against the Thomases and the Thomases have appealed from the resultant judgment.

The evidence was that Walter Thomas had contracted to buy from DeGrace a tavern with the colorful name of "The Lost Weekend".

The contract, signed by Rosalie P. DeGrace, read in its entirety as follows:

6/26/86

I agree to Sell all Equipment in The Bar now named Lost Week End 2449 Indep Ave Providing Leta's Inc can obtain a Lease.I also agree to Sign all papers When Needed and Let Leta's Inc., run off my License till New License are purchased.For total Sum of Eight thousand dollars [to] be paid as Follows: Two Thousand now, Two Thousand as Soon as Lease is Signed and balance of Four Thousand after 60 days.

/signed/ Rosalie P. DeGrace

Leta's Inc., mentioned in the contract, was a corporation of which Phileda Thomas was the sole shareholder.Thomas testified that his plan was to turn the bar over to Leta's Inc., when he got a lease and a liquor license.

Thomas paid DeGrace in three checks totaling $9,100.Of that amount $600 was for liquor supplies left in the bar by DeGrace.The evidence contains no explanation for the additional $500 above the sum of the $8,000 contract price of the bar and the $600 for inventory.

Thomas entered into the operation of the bar on July 1, 1986.After he commenced operating, "Liquor Control" called him and he went to the (Kansas City) Liquor Control office.There, according to Thomas's testimony, he was told that his contract with DeGrace would not satisfy Liquor Control requirements--that to get Liquor Control off his back he should have an agreement stating he was managing the bar for Rosalie DeGrace, giving her 10% of the gross, signed by her and notarized.Thomas went back to DeGrace and she signed the following memorandum dated June 28, 1986:

I agree to Let Leta's Inc. manage the Lost Weekend till 12/31/86, The Extent of my Lease, pay all Bills and manage to not put my License in Danger.

/signed/Rosalie DeGrace

Thomas operated the bar for four months and ten days, that is, to November 10.On that day DeGrace came to the bar and took her license off the wall.Thomas was evidently not there at the time but he was called and came to the bar.The police were there.DeGrace was intoxicated, according to Thomas's testimony, and was pouring drinks for herself.

Thomas testified that after November 10 when DeGrace took her license off the wall, the police and Liquor Control asked him to close the business down, which he did.1Thomas testified he waited till the 20th of November "hoping that she would give the license back and I could reopen the bar and continue the business".On November 20he removed from the tavern the portable property but was prevented from taking the rest of it when the landlord padlocked the door and would not permit him to take it.

Thomas further testified Ms. DeGrace at the time he took over the tavern operation had unpaid bills for liquor in the amount of $200 or $300 and for trash pickup in the amount of $99.He paid these bills so as to be able to buy liquor and in order to get his trash picked up.He paid unpaid licenses, fees and taxes amounting to $224.01....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Cupp v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 6, 2004
    ...we do not go beyond the grounds asserted in the motion and briefed on appeal to look for other reasons to affirm. Thomas v. DeGrace, 776 S.W.2d 500, 501 (Mo.App.1989). Mart did not assert any basis in its motion to support the direction of the verdict apart from the lack of a duty based on ......
  • Lynch v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 2008
    ...did not make and does not argue. See May Dept. Stores Co. v. Adworks, Inc. 740 S.W.2d 383, 386 (Mo.App.1987). See also Thomas v. DeGrace, 776 S.W.2d 500, 501 (Mo.App.1989). The trial court erred in entering judgment on the pleadings in MDOC's favor on the ground that plaintiff could be give......
  • Geller v. General Agents Ins. Co. of America, Inc., WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 8, 1992
    ...we are not obliged to go abroad from respondent's brief to search out a basis for sustaining a summary judgment. Thomas v. De Grace, 776 S.W.2d 500 (Mo.App.1989). The insurance company cites Section 301.210, RSMo 1986, and Faygal v. Shelter Ins. Co., 689 S.W.2d 724 (Mo.App.1985), in support......
  • Comstock v. Walsh, s. WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1992
    ...brief; we do not on our own initiative go into the countryside searching for a ground to sustain the summary judgment. Thomas v. DeGrace, 776 S.W.2d 500 (Mo.App.1989). We rule the issue whether defendants are immune from liability under section 210.135, and that issue We hold in the circums......
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 7.8 Plaintiffs
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Contracts Deskbook Chapter 7 Litigating Breach-of-Contract Claims
    • Invalid date
    ...into a contract for the benefit of another party may sue on the contract without joining the beneficiary. Rule 52.01; Thomas v. DeGrace, 776 S.W.2d 500, 500 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989). Thus, a party may sue on a contract on behalf of third-party beneficiaries without joining the beneficiaries. Li......