Van Sant v. Austin-Hamill-Hoover Live Stock Commission Co.
Decision Date | 06 June 1927 |
Parties | ISAAC L. VAN SANT, APPELLANT, v. AUSTIN-HAMILL-HOOVER LIVE STOCK COMMISSION COMPANY, RESPONDENT. [*] |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County.--Hon. L. A Vories, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Brown Douglas & Brown and Smith, Schall, Howell & Sheehan for appellant.
Myers & Snearly and Mytton & Parkinson for respondent.
Trimble, P. J., absent.
This is an action for damages for the alleged conversion of certain cattle on which plaintiff held a chattel mortgage. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the court gave an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. Plaintiff took a nonsuit with leave to move to set the same aside. Plaintiff's motion to set aside the nonsuit was overruled and the case is lodged here by appeal.
The record reveals that plaintiff and one Edward H. Benton were copartners, transacting business under the firm name of Benton and Van Sant in the city of Omaha, Nebraska, and were engaged in the business of buying and selling live stock. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the live stock commission business at St. Joseph, Missouri. It receives, handles and sells live stock for shippers, collects the proceeds, pays the expenses and remits the net proceeds in accordance with the direction of the shipper.
On September 29, 1920, C. O. Hopkins, Sr., a farmer and stock raiser, of Atchison county, Missouri, purchased from the firm of Benton and Van Sant one hundred twenty-two (122) head of steers agreeing to pay therefore the sum of $ 11,373.31 and at the time executed to said firm his promissory note for that amount and a chattel mortgage on the steers purchased to secure the payment of said note. Hopkins took the steers to his home in Atchison county, Missouri, and the chattel mortgage was duly recorded in said county.
The steers were described in the mortgage as follows:
Hopkins shipped eighty-two of the steers, together with other stock to respondent at St. Joseph, Missouri, for sale on the market, part of them being shipped on December 30, 1920, the remainder on January 12, 1921. Respondent sold both shipments for Hopkins, retained its commission and other expenses incident to the sale and remitted the proceeds to Hopkins. The remaining forty steers are not involved in this action. They were sold and the proceeds amounting to $ 3345.85 was paid to plaintiff and credited on the note.
The evidence shows that respondent had no actual knowledge that the steers were mortgaged to plaintiff and knew nothing about the arrangement between plaintiff and Hopkins relative to their sale.
Plaintiff had no notice that Hopkins intended to sell the cattle. He first learned of the sale about March 1, 1921. On March 15, 1921, he went to Hopkins' home in Atchison county and demanded payment of the note secured by the mortgage. He remained there three or four days, during which time Hopkins borrowed $ 9000 from the Citizens National Bank of Atchison county, paid it to plaintiff and promised to pay the balance due on the note in a few days. At the direction of Hopkins $ 2969.27 of this amount was credited on a cattle note not involved in this suit. The remaining $ 6330.73 was credited on the note secured by the mortgage here involved, leaving a balance of $ 1749.17 due thereon.
Shortly after receiving the $ 9000 payment from Hopkins appellant went to respondent's office in the city of St. Joseph and obtained a copy of the account sales of the eighty-two steers. At that time he told a Mr. Hamill, one of respondent's managing officers, that he had a mortgage on these cattle and expected to look to respondent for the money. Hamill said to plaintiff, "I'll see what we can do for you, see if we can make arrangements to pay you."
The partnership of Benton and Van Sant was dissolved and the assets thereof divided between the partners in June, 1921. In the division of assets the note secured by the chattel mortgage on the steers in question, was assigned and delivered to plaintiff.
Respondent contends that plaintiff gave his consent for Hopkins to sell the cattle and thereby waived his lien. The only testimony on this subject is that given by plaintiff which is as follows:
Plaintiff contends that there is no evidence that the note and mortgage had been delivered before the oral agreement was made between plaintiff and the mortgagor relative to the sale of the property by the mortgagor, and for this reason evidence of such oral agreement is not sufficient to establish consent to sell, since it would vary the terms of the chattel mortgage.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co. v. Kieselhorst Co.
... ... 559; Byrne v. Carson, 70 Mo.App. 126; Van Sant ... v. Austin, 221 Mo.App. 1096, 295 S.W. 506; Swinney ... Bank v. Ricker, 330 Mo ... 75, 49 S.W.2d 20. (10) Stock Exchange quotations are not ... always proof of the ... C. Shortline ... R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 339 Mo. 641, 98 ... S.W.2d 699, l. c. 703. Defendants ... ...
-
Graves v. Merchants & Mechanics Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
... ... Limpp, 288 S.W ... 957, 221 Mo.App. 951; Van Sant v. Commission Co., ... 295 S.W. 506, 221 Mo.App. 1096. (3) ... ...
-
Welty v. S. H. Kress & Co.
... ... which had come from the stock room nested together. That is ... to say, the pans were ... ...