Weisguth v. Burke, No. 25347.
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | Hughes |
| Citation | 138 S.W.2d 689 |
| Parties | WEISGUTH v. BURKE. |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 25347. |
v.
BURKE.
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Division No. 1; Julius R. Nolte, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Suit by Roy J. Weisguth, doing business as the Lynn Liquor Company, against Thomas A. Burke, doing business as Burke's Buffet, on an account for wines and liquors plaintiff claimed to have sold and delivered to defendant. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Edwin Rader, of Clayton, for appellant.
Paul Dillon and Maurice Schechter, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
HUGHES, Presiding Justice.
This is a suit on an account. A jury being waived, the case was tried before the court, resulting in a finding and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $1,175.11. No declarations of law or findings of fact were requested or given. The account is for wines and liquors plaintiff claims to have sold and delivered to defendant between November 7, 1934, and December 13, 1934. Plaintiff was in the wholesale liquor business, and defendant conducted a tavern under the trade-name of Burke's Buffet. For some time before and after the above dates defendant purchased wines and liquors from plaintiff for which he paid, but defendant claims that between the above dates the wines and liquors for which he is now sued were sold to one Bert Cohn, who was a sales manager for plaintiff, and who had entered into an agreement with defendant whereby he had rented the package liquor business in the tavern, and was between said dates conducting that business and incurred the account sued on, and the only interest defendant had in that business was that he received 50% of the profits.
Plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that both before and after the period between November 7th and December 13th, wines and liquors were sold and delivered to the defendant's place of business, that it was always charged to defendant on his books of account, and that all delivery tickets were signed by defendant or some employee about his place, that defendant paid all of the account except for goods delivered during said period, that plaintiff knew of some arrangement between defendant and Cohn about profit sharing on package liquor sales, and that Cohn had no license to sell liquor but the same was sold under a license in defendant's name and the business was always conducted under defendant's trade-name.
The view we take of the case is that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Jensen, No. 25311
...of Sec. 472.250 which authorized a trial de novo upon such an appeal. The case cited by appellants, Weisguth v. Burke, Mo.App., 138 S.W.2d 689, has nothing to do with probate appeals and is not remotely in Appellants also assert under Points and Authorities, but without argument or expositi......
-
King v. City of St. Louis, No. 25807.
...evidence. We cannot notice this assignment for an appellate court in a law case cannot weigh the evidence. Weisguth v. Burke, Mo.App., 138 S.W.2d 689. Appellant next complains of instruction number one given at the request of plaintiff. This instruction tells the jury that if they find that......
-
Heath v. Perky Brothers Transfer & Storage Co., No. 19966.
...made the judgment must be affirmed if there is any substantial evidence to support it on any correct theory. Weisguth v. Burke, Mo.App., 138 S.W.2d 689, loc. cit. 690; State v. Kelly, Mo.App., 131 S.W.2d 371, loc. cit. 373; Paulette v. Sernes, Mo. App., 103 S.W.2d 573, loc. cit. 577. Plaint......
-
Vogt v. Ford Motor Co., No. 25490.
...whether the employee Vogt suffered an accident with a resulting injury. The Commission determined that he did; and although the evidence 138 S.W.2d 689 is conflicting, its weight and value was for the Commission; and its award and the judgment of the Circuit Court affirming that award shoul......
-
Cooper v. Jensen, No. 25311
...of Sec. 472.250 which authorized a trial de novo upon such an appeal. The case cited by appellants, Weisguth v. Burke, Mo.App., 138 S.W.2d 689, has nothing to do with probate appeals and is not remotely in Appellants also assert under Points and Authorities, but without argument or expositi......
-
King v. City of St. Louis, No. 25807.
...evidence. We cannot notice this assignment for an appellate court in a law case cannot weigh the evidence. Weisguth v. Burke, Mo.App., 138 S.W.2d 689. Appellant next complains of instruction number one given at the request of plaintiff. This instruction tells the jury that if they find that......
-
Heath v. Perky Brothers Transfer & Storage Co., No. 19966.
...made the judgment must be affirmed if there is any substantial evidence to support it on any correct theory. Weisguth v. Burke, Mo.App., 138 S.W.2d 689, loc. cit. 690; State v. Kelly, Mo.App., 131 S.W.2d 371, loc. cit. 373; Paulette v. Sernes, Mo. App., 103 S.W.2d 573, loc. cit. 577. Plaint......
-
Vogt v. Ford Motor Co., No. 25490.
...whether the employee Vogt suffered an accident with a resulting injury. The Commission determined that he did; and although the evidence 138 S.W.2d 689 is conflicting, its weight and value was for the Commission; and its award and the judgment of the Circuit Court affirming that award shoul......