Waters v. Hays
Decision Date | 06 April 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 23944.,23944. |
Citation | 103 S.W.2d 498 |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | WATERS v. HAYS et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. Joynt, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Raymond G. Waters against Joseph Hays and William Steinbruegge, doing business as the West Florissant Motor Sales. From a judgment for plaintiff, last-named defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
A. A. Alexander and T. J. Crowder, both of St. Louis, for appellant.
Eagleton, Waechter, Yost, Elam & Clark, of St. Louis, for respondent.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when struck by an automobile at the intersection of Grand boulevard and Laclede avenue, in the city of St. Louis.
The trial, with a jury, resulted in a verdict for plaintiff against both defendants for $3,000, and judgment was given accordingly. Defendant Steinbruegge appeals.
The evidence shows that on the morning of December 2, 1933, at about one o'clock, plaintiff was struck by defendant Steinbruegge's Chevrolet sedan. Defendant Hays, who was at the time in the general employ of defendant Steinbruegge as an automobile salesman, was riding in the sedan which struck plaintiff. The sedan was proceeding south on Grand boulevard. Plaintiff, just prior to the time he was struck had alighted from a southbound street car, and according to his testimony, was standing in a safety zone just north of the intersection of Grand and Laclede.
Error is assigned by appellant here for the refusal of his instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence.
The assignment is put on the ground that there is no proof in the record that defendant Hays, the driver of the sedan, was at the time of the accident in the discharge of any duty pertaining to his employment, and that the presumption that defendant Hays was on the business of the appellant, which arose upon proof of the ownership of the sedan and the general employment of defendant Hays, was put to flight by testimony which was positive, unequivocal, and unimpeached, introduced by defendant showing that defendant Hays was on a mission of his own.
In view of this assignment the evidence relevant to the issue as to whether or not defendant Hays was on the business of appellant will have to be set out in some detail.
It is not disputed that defendant Hays was in the general employ of appellant as an automobile salesman. Nor is it disputed that appellant was the owner of the sedan involved in the accident. Nor is it disputed that appellant was engaged in the business of selling both new and used automobiles, having his place of business at 6514 West Florissant avenue, in the city of St. Louis.
Plaintiff testified as follows:
Christopher A. McDonald testified, for plaintiff, as follows:
Clifford William Young testified, for defendants, as follows:
Roxie McCleary testified, for defendants, as follows:
Defendant William Steinbruegge testified for defendants, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collins v. Leahy
... ... for the jury. Collins v. Leahy, 102 S.W.2d 801, Id., ... 125 S.W.2d 874; State ex rel. Waters v. Hostetter, ... 126 S.W.2d 1164; Waters v. Hays, 103 S.W.2d 498, ... Id., 130 S.W.2d 220. (b) The law of the case had been settled ... on the ... ...
-
Waters v. Hays
...judgment, the defendant Steinbruegge appeals. A decision of the St. Louis Court of Appeals affirming the judgment for the plaintiff, 103 S.W.2d 498, was quashed by the Supreme Court, 115 S.W.2d Judgment for appealing defendant in conformance with Supreme Court's opinion. A. A. Alexander and......
-
State ex rel. Waters v. Hostetter
...when in fact we made no such ruling. Respondents' opinion under review (118 S.W.2d 39) refers to and quotes from their former opinion (103 S.W.2d 498) and our (342 Mo. 341, 115 S.W.2d 802), and in part makes them the basis for its ruling. The undisputed evidence is that Steinbruegge was eng......
-
State ex rel. Merc. Corp. v. Hogan, 24106.
...purpose of the officer's return is to give evidence of the fact that service has been had in conformity with the command of the process. 103 S.W.2d 498 We think it follows, therefore, that when the officer, as in the case in question, discloses by his return that he has obtained service upo......