Watkins Co. v. Thompson et al.
Decision Date | 06 April 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 18316.,18316. |
Citation | 93 S.W.2d 1100 |
Parties | J.R. WATKINS COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. CLIFFORD C. THOMPSON ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ALTE WATKINS, EXECUTRIX, APPELLANT. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Sullivan County. — Hon. Paul Van Osdol, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).
L.E. Atherton for respondent.
Platt Hubbell for appellant.
This is an action by the plaintiff seeking to recover from the defendant as guarantor for a debt of $679.48 owed to plaintiff by reason of credit extended to Clifford C. Thompson for goods sold to the said Thompson by plaintiff.
The plaintiff, a corporation of the State of Delaware, is designated as a wholesale merchant that sells products to traveling merchants or vendee of its goods. It appears that prior to February 25, 1931, the said Thompson had been a vendor of plaintiff's goods and had gotten into debt in the full amount involved herein prior to that date.
There is shown in evidence an instrument of writing executed and signed by plaintiff by its assistant treasurer. This instrument consists of ten clauses and is somewhat restrictive of Thompson's right to purchase goods from the plaintiff. These restrictions are frequently subject to waiver by the plaintiff without notice to sureties.
Paragraphs one and two of this instrument are as follows:
When the document is read as a whole, we conclude that the same is peculiarly adapted to the plaintiff's method of doing business in this State. The document so restricts the purchaser as to his territory, as to his right to purchase, and as to the general method of business as to constitute a condition wherein the plaintiff retains the powers of a master over its "Purchaser" without, as interpreted by the plaintiff, making the purchaser and vendor of its products its agent.
The above referred to document is executed by the assistant treasurer of the plaintiff corporation. Directly under the signature of the assistant treasurer, the following appears: "Purchaser sign here In Ink Clifford Cabe Thompson, Full name, not initials." Directly following the above, the following paragraph appears:
The name of John T. Watkins appears as signing as surety. There was an acknowledged and expressed indebtedness of $679.48 when John T. Watkins signed.
The purchasing vendee and John T. Watkins and one John C. Lomax, another surety, are the named defendants in the suit filed by plaintiff seeking to recover the indebtedness.
The defendants John T. Watkins and John C. Lomax filed separate answers.
For the reason that questions of pleadings are raised as to the John T. Watkins' answer, we include said answer herein as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Local Finance Co. v. Charlton
...v. Bunton, 316 Mo. 1338, 296 S.W. 375; South Side Buick Auto Co. v. Bejach, Mo.App., 44 S.W.2d 870, 872.13 J. R. Watkins Co. v. Thompson, 230 Mo.App. 482, 93 S.W.2d 1100, 1104; Reddick v. Union Electric Light & Power Co., 210 Mo.App. 260, 243 S.W. 382.14 Kalamazoo Nat. Bank v. Clark, 52 Mo.......
-
J. R. Watkins Co. v. Lankford
...Thus there are no facts in evidence to show that the general rule should not apply in this case. Defendants rely on J. R. Watkins v. Thompson, 230 Mo.App. 482, 93 S.W.2d 1100 and Gate City National Bank v. Bunton, 316 Mo. 1338, 296 S.W. 375, 379. The facts in the Thompson case were very dif......
-
J. R. Watkins Co. v. Hall
...and apply such principles to factual situations quite similar to ours. We shall review those opinions. In J. R. Watkins Co. v. Thompson, 230 Mo.App. 482, 93 S.W.2d 1100, 1103, the surety, John T. Watkins, signed what he believed was only a letter of recommendation. The verdict was for defen......
- J. R. Watkins Co. v. Thompson