Townsend v. Maplewood Investment & Loan Co., 26166.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1943
• Docket Number: No. 26166.,No. 26167.,26166.,26167.
• Citation: 167 S.W.2d 93
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: TOWNSEND v. MAPLEWOOD INVESTMENT & LOAN CO.

167 S.W.2d 93

TOWNSEND v. MAPLEWOOD INVESTMENT & LOAN CO.

No. 26166.

No. 26167.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 5, 1943.

Appeals from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Julius R. Nolte, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action in equity by Vincent F. Townsend against Maplewood Investment & Loan Company to cancel a note and for an accounting, wherein the defendant filed a counterclaim. From judgment entered, both parties appeal.

Cause transferred to the Supreme Court.

John E. Corvey, of St. Louis, for plaintiff.

Lashly, Lashly, Miller & Clifford, of St. Louis, for defendant.

SUTTON, Commissioner.

This is an action in equity.

Plaintiff alleges in his petition that on January 6, 1931, he was induced by the officers and agents of defendant company, on statements by said officers and agents that defendant company was in a sound financial condition, to loan defendant company certain deeds of trust of the face value of $9,853, and was induced to execute a negotiable promissory note for $10,000 in blank, payable to defendant company; that the real object and purpose of said note, unknown at the time to plaintiff, was to enable defendant to carry the aforesaid deeds of trust on its books as assets while the apparent consideration for said note was the pretended sale by defendant company to plaintiff of 800 shares of its own capital stock, defendant taking plaintiff's note in payment for same; that said note is wholly without consideration and that at no time was any consideration ever paid him for said note; that plaintiff was induced to enter into said transaction by fraudulent representations concerning the financial condition of the defendant company; that without plaintiff's knowledge said note was antedated by the officers and agents of defendant to December 31, 1930, and that a notation was inserted in the body of the note showing that the note was given for 800 shares of common stock of the defendant company; that after the loan of his said securities for the purpose of accommodating defendant company, but without any consideration whatever to plaintiff, said company collected $5,569.79 on said securities, but failed to account to plaintiff for any part of same, or the interest thereon, retaining all of said collections for its own use, but in order to give an appearance of legality to the retention of said moneys which rightfully belonged to plaintiff, defendant company credited this amount on the unlawful $10,000 note. He further alleges, after setting forth certain other transactions respecting the securities deposited with defendant, that to determine the amount due him requires an accounting, but that defendant is indebted to plaintiff for more than $8,000, and prays that the court will order said $10,000...