United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose

• Decision Date: 21 June 1910
• Citation: 132 S.W. 1143,231 Mo. 545
• Parties: UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO. v. RAMLOSE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

132 S.W. 1143

231 Mo. 545

UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO. v. RAMLOSE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 21, 1910.

Rehearing Denied December 17, 1910.

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County.

Action by the United Shoe Machinery Company against Annie M. Ramlose. From a denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This appeal grows out of a case between these same parties, which was tried in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis which resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant. It was appealed to this court and is numbered 15,088.

Upon the incoming of the verdict in that case, the defendant, on the 18th day of May, 1908, and within four days after the trial, and during the same term of court, filed in said cause a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, as follows (formal parts omitted):

"Now comes the defendant and moves the court to enter judgment in her favor, notwithstanding the verdict herein, for: (1) The return to the defendant of the two National Heelers Nos. 774 and 713 and two Bussel Heel Trimmers Nos. 781 and 1852, their assessed value of $11.65, at the option of the defendant and also for the damages assessed by the jury for the detention thereof. (2) For the sum of $3,616.10, the damages assessed by the jury for being deprived of the possession and use of the leased machines from the 8th day of April, 1903, to the 15th day of May, 1908. (3) For the return to the defendant of the leased machines mentioned in the petition and order of delivery, except the two National Heelers and two Bussel Heel Trimmers aforesaid, or for the sum of $5,988.35, the value of the same, according to the undisputed testimony in the case, at the option of the defendant.

"And for grounds for this motion defendant alleges the following: (1) Because this court erred in not obeying the mandate of the Supreme Court in this case. (2) Because the undisputed testimony in this case shows that all of the machines taken under the order of delivery in this case are in the possession of the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court commanded this court, if such was the fact, to proceed as prescribed by sections 4473 and 4474, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, pp. 2452, 2453], the first of which requires the jury to assess the value of the property taken, and the damages for the taking and detaining the same for the time such property was taken or detained from defendant until the day of the trial of the cause, and the...