Weston v. Fisher

Decision Date02 March 1915
PartiesWILBUR A. WESTON, Appellant, v. JOHN M. FISHER et al
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court. -- Hon. Andrew A. Whitsett Judge.

Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals.

George W. Littick and J. W. Suddath & Son for appellant.

Nick M Bradley and T. N. Haynes for respondents.

OPINION

GRAVES, P. J.

The petition in this case is a legal curio and should be preserved. We shall not name it, but permit counsel to give it a name. They say in the brief here it is a bill in equity. They so considered it nisi. It reads:

"Plaintiff for his cause of action, states that on or about the first day of March, 1908, defendants became and were the owners of the west half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section eleven, in township forty-six, of range twenty-nine, in Johnson county, Missouri, which thereafter became subject to two mortgages aggregating about seven hundred dollars and being in excess of its value; that the defendants undertook to cultivate the same but had very little property of any kind and were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $ 468, which was secured by a mortgage on said twenty acres. That between March 1, 1908, and March 1, 1909, plaintiff advanced to defendants at their special instance and request the sum of $ 133.90 for their use in purchasing feed and provisions, which sum has never been repaid.

"That on or about April 3, 1909, defendants, finding their inability to carry on said farm of twenty acres then and there entered into an agreement with plaintiff herein; that in consideration of said plaintiff advancing money, supplies, etc., to carry on and operate said twenty acres as a place to raise stock and poultry, said farm to be known as 'Rocky Ridge Poultry Farm,' they agreed that they would do all necessary work, give all care and attention and devote their entire time to said business of caring for said poultry and stock and that plaintiff would further advance to them money to pay grocery bills, dry goods, tobacco and other expenses incurred and out of the proceeds raised upon said farm defendants were to first repay to plaintiff the sums advanced for feed and personal expenses and next one-half of all sums paid for stock and implements and then deed to plaintiff a one-half interest in said twenty acres and from that time to share in the net proceeds with the plaintiff equally. That in pursuance of said agreement this plaintiff advanced to defendants the sum of $ 1369.12 during the year commencing April 1, 1909, and during all said year commencing April 1, 1909, fully performed his part of said agreement. That defendants gave but little or no attention to said business, and so poorly managed and controlled the same that at the end of the year, to-wit, April 1, 1910, they were indebted to this plaintiff personally $ 2026.02, paid out for grocery bills, feed, personal expenses of the defendants, hired help, etc., and in addition to that had never paid to plaintiff any of said personal indebtedness; and that which arose from the increase of stock, etc., had used and not accounted for any part thereof. That during said whole year, as in the year before, defendants gave but little, if any, attention to the management and feeding of said stock or to the raising of any stock and made no effort whatever to pay said various obligations.

"That during the year 1909, to-wit, about August, 1909, plaintiff purchased one hundred and seven acres, adjacent to said twenty acres, which was described as follows, to-wit: The east half of lot one of the northwest quarter, the south seven acres of the west half of lot one of the northwest quarter, the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter and the west twenty acres of the northeast quarter, all in section two in township forty-six of range twenty-nine; and in the early part of 1910 he purchased the further tract of one hundred and thirty-two acres, described as follows: The east half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the west half of lot one of the northeast quarter and the west three-fourths of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter, all in section two, in township forty-six of range twenty-nine, making in all two hundred thirty-nine acres, belonging to this plaintiff, adjoining said twenty acres, belonging to defendants.

"That at the expiration of the year 1909-1910, about April 1, 1910, the defendants having wholly failed to successfully manage said business, repay any of said indebtedness above enumerated, convinced that they were unable to make a success of the business or even to make a living, urged plaintiff in some way to relieve them, offered to deed to plaintiff said twenty acres for the consideration that plaintiff would assume the payment of the mortgages thereon, which proposition plaintiff then and there accepted and the deed to said twenty acres was made pursuant to said agreement on May 10, 1910.

"That on said first day of April, 1910, at the time said agreement was made and accepted, a new oral agreement was entered into by and between plaintiff and defendants. That it was agreed that defendants, being wholly insolvent, wholly without property or means, and yet without any place to go, that they should stay there in the building which is situated on said twenty acres above described, at the pleasure of the plaintiff as the employees, servants and agents of the plaintiff and operate said farm and receive as their compensation therefor one-half of the net proceeds of stock placed upon said farm by the plaintiff and one-half of the proceeds of the crops that might be sold from said place, over and above what was needed to feed the stock and one-half of the net proceeds of the poultry, after the same were fed. That out of said proceeds were first to be paid the personal indebtedness first above enumerated and that incurred up to the time of this agreement and any that might be thereafter incurred by plaintiff furnishing to defendants money to pay their personal bills and expenses; that these debts and expenses were to be paid out of the one-half of the net proceeds that would be going to the defendants.

"That in pursuance of this agreement plaintiff put upon said farm fifty-three head of sheep, sixteen head of lambs, one buck, one sow and ten pigs, forty head of two-year-old heifers and other cattle, two horses, three mules and implements to the value of three hundred dollars, to operate said farm as the employees of plaintiff, until such time as the plaintiff might make any further arrangements.

"That in pursuance of said contract the defendants took charge, as the employees of plaintiff, of said stock and implements and farm, agreeing to take care of all said stock, farm said lands in a good and husband-manlike manner receive for their part one-half...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Moller-Vandenboom Lumber Co. v. Boudreau
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Julio 1935
    ... ... Laughlin v. Gerardi, 67 Mo.App. 372; Kings Lake ... Drainage Dist. v. Winkelmeyer, 62 S.W.2d 1101, 1103; ... Weston v. Fisher, 180 S.W. 1038, 1039. (4) The ... action and proceeding is at law, not in equity. Western ... Brass Mfg. Co. v. Eidlitz, 74 Mo.App ... ...
  • Johnson v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Septiembre 1918
  • Nettleton Bank v. McGauhey's Estate
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 4 Febrero 1928
    ...204 Mo. 439, 102 S.W. 1089; Brannock v. Magoon, 216 Mo. 723, 726, 116 S.W. 500; Hill v. Hopson, 221 Mo. 111, 120 S.W. 29; Weston v. Fisher, 264 Mo. 257, 174 S.W. 372; Dillard v. Sanderson, 282 Mo. 438, 222 S.W. Without attempting to quote from the cases just cited, we permit ourselves an il......
  • Williams v. Mackey
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Julio 1931
    ... ... S.W. 1089; Brannock v. Magoon, 216 Mo. 722, 723, ... 726, 116 S.W. 500; Hill v. Hopson, 221 Mo. 103, 111, ... 120 S.W. 29; Weston v. Fisher, 264 Mo. 250, 257, 174 ... S.W. 372; Dillard v. Anderson, 282 Mo. 436, 438, 222 ... ...
  • 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