Ward v. Morr Transfer & Storage Co.

Decision Date04 June 1906
Citation119 Mo. App. 83,95 S.W. 964
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesWARD v. MORR TRANSFER & STORAGE CO.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Hermann Brumback, Judge.

Action by Anna Ward against the Morr Transfer & Storage Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Holmes & Page and Garland M. Jones, for appellant. W. R. Thurmond and A. O. Harrison, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

The defendant is a general storage and warehouse company in Kansas City, Mo., and the plaintiff, then residing at that place, on March 11, 1903, stored with it a lot of household goods, which she charged it with converting, and brought this action for conversion. She prevailed in the trial court by a judgment for $434.75.

The defendant sold the goods at public auction, and claims the statute (section 10,571, Rev. St. 1899) as authority therefor. It reads as follows: "If the owner of any goods, merchandise or other property shall store the same in any warehouse created by this chapter, and shall not pay the storage charges upon the same within a period of sixty days after said charges have become due, it shall be lawful for the warehouseman to sell such goods, merchandise or other property, or so much thereof as will pay all storage and other charges, at auction to the highest bidder, first having given either twenty days' notice by advertisement in a daily paper, or four weeks' notice by advertisement in a weekly paper, of the time and place of sale, and having further given notice to the owner by mailing him, at least twenty days before the day of sale, if his address is known, a notice of the time and place of sale. * * *" It was shown that 20 days' notice of sale was published in a daily paper but defendant admitted that it did not give the other notice required by mailing it to plaintiff. The reason assigned for not giving such notice was that it did not know plaintiff's address. Whether defendant knew her address is made one of the principal points in the case. It was submitted to the jury as an issue in an instruction. Defendant insists that there was no evidence showing that her address was known, and consequently nothing upon which to justify the instruction. It is necessary to know the following, to understand the relation between the parties: The storage to be paid was $1.25 per month; but, as plaintiff was not going to remain in the city, intending to travel about from place to place, and did not wish to be annoyed by remembering and remitting such small sums, it was arranged that when defendant had carried her as long as it was willing it was to notify her of the amount, she to keep the company informed as to her address. She said to defendant's agent: "Whenever I get to any place or change my address, I will send you immediately my new address, and, whenever you feel you must have your money, you will let me know when you want it." Whether plaintiff notified defendant of her different addresses bears upon the question whether it should have given her notice by mail of the sale. She went to St. Louis, where she remained four mouths, and then returned to Kansas City. She then went to Denver and remained until September, 1903. She went from there to Stearns, Ky., where she remained until the following June after the goods were sold by defendant. She testified on the matter of notifying defendant of her address from St. Louis, etc.; but as she was at Stearns, Ky., for several months prior to the time of sale of her goods, we will pass to the evidence relating to that place. She stated that upon arriving at Stearns in September "I sent them my address, stating where I was." She stated that "the following February I wrote them [defendant] saying I wanted them to let my mother have my fruit." This letter she stated she mailed, and that she got an answer [which she destroyed] refusing to give up the fruit without her receipt, so as to make indorsement thereon. She wrote again, and defendant again answered by refusing. These letters were not produced; defendant saying they did not get any such letters, and plaintiff saying that she had destroyed those she received. Afterwards she went from Stearns to St. Louis, and on June 22, 1904, she wrote to defendant, saying that she had never received a bill on storage and to send her one. To this she received an immediate answer, dated June 23d. This letter plaintiff produced, and it read as follows: "Your letter of the 22d inst. has been received, and in reply beg to report that your goods were sold May 20, 1904, for storage charges and cost of advertising, and did not sell for enough to cover same. These goods were put in here April, 1903, and we not only never received any payment on storage, but we could not find you or get any response to bills or letters. Prior to selling the goods we sent you a notice, addressed `City,' and another to `1731 Main St.,' and both were returned. We also advertised the goods as required by law. We regret that such a course was necessary, but we were compelled to protect ourselves." Defendant denies ever receiving any but the last letter, which they immediately answered as just set forth.

It will be observed that the evidence of notice to defendant of plaintiff's address is not direct or positive evidence. It is rather made to depend upon a presumption that in regular course, letters are received by addressees. In order to lay a foundation for such presumption, it should be shown that the letter was duly addressed, stamped, and deposited in the post office or the place for receipt of letters. That, however, is made to appear sufficiently by evidence that it was "mailed" to the addressee. A letter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Mo. Cattle Co. v. Great Southern Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1932
    ...Mo. 647, 31 S.W. 938; Best v. German Ins. Co., 68 Mo. App. 598; Sills v. Burge, 141 Mo. App. 148, 124 S.W. 605; Ward v. Morr Transfer & Storage Co., 119 Mo. App. 83, 95 S.W. 969. (3) The trial court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter of this action with full equity po......
  • State v. Bradley
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 13, 1950
    ...of the testimony of the witness. Collier v. Langan & Taylor Storage & Moving Co., 147 Mo.App. 700, 127 S.W. 435; Ward v. Morr Transfer & Storage Co., 119 Mo.App. 83, 95 S.W. 964; Vol. 5, Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, 2d Ed., Sec. 2378, pp. 4668-4671; Annotation, 125 A.L.R. 19, at pages 6......
  • Armour & Co. v. American Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1935
    ... ... Goucher v. Novelty Co., ... 116 Mo.App. 102; Ward v. Transfer & Storage Co., 119 ... Mo.App. 88; Hardin Grain Co. v ... Novelty Co., 116 Mo.App. 99, 91 S.W. 447; Ward v ... Morr Transfer & Storage Co., 119 Mo.App. 83, 95 S.W ... 964; Hardin Grain ... ...
  • Barnett v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 2, 1926
    ...testimony that they were mailed, which is sufficient to raise the presumption that they were received. Ward v. Transfer & Storage Co., 119 Mo. App. 83, 95 S. W. 964; Price Brokerage Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 207 Mo. App. 8, 230 S. W. 374; Collins v. Hoover, 205 Mo. App. 93, 218 S. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT