Wolfersberger v. Hoppenjon

• Citation: 68 S.W.2d 814,334 Mo. 817
• Parties: George S. Wolfersberger v. Glenna Hoppenjon, Charles H. Rechner and Emma L. Rechner, Appellants
• Decision Date: 23 February 1934
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

68 S.W.2d 814

334 Mo. 817

George S. Wolfersberger v. Glenna Hoppenjon, Charles H. Rechner and Emma L. Rechner, Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

February 23, 1934

Respondent's Motions for Rehearing and to Quash Opinion and Exhibits Overruled December 20, 1933.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon Thomas J. Seehorn Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Henry S. Conrad, L. E. Durham and Hale Houts for appellants.

(1) The case is one in equity and the court erred in not transferring it to the equity docket. Lambert v. Railroad, 212 Mo. 709; Shaffer v. Detie, 191 Mo. 392; Block v Morrison, 112 Mo. 350; Mahan v. Ins. Co., 205 Mo.App. 592; Wilson v. Reed, 270 Mo. 405; Johnson v. Huston, 42 Mo. 227; McShane v. Haberrecht, 117 Mo.App. 31; Fassett v. O'Brien, 149 Mo. 390; Siemens v. Schrader, 88 Mo. 23; Bailey v. Winn, 101 Mo. 656; Hunter v. Henan, 181 S.W. 397; Williams v. Treece, 184 Mo.App. 140; Adams v. Gilcrest, 63 Mo.App. 645; State ex rel. v. Dickman, 146 Mo.App. 410; Dale v. Parker, 143 Mo.App. 498; Robinson v. Mining Co., 55 Mo.App. 667; Loughlin v. Wells, 183 S.W. 993; Bridge & Transit Co. v. Blaser, 318 Mo. 379; Hauser v. Murray, 256 Mo. 84; Barron v. Store Co., 292 Mo. 211; Williamson v. Frazzee, 294 Mo. 329; Cuthbert v. Home, 14 S.W.2d 445; Ebbs v. Neff, 30 S.W.2d 619. (2) Assuming the action to have been one at law and therefore one for trial to a jury, the court erred in not directing a verdict for the defendants. (a) The defendant Rechner was a holder in due course for value of the notes secured by the third mortgages; the notes were valid obligations of the plaintiff, and the defendants were entitled to possession upon the nonpayment of said notes at maturity. Wilson v. Reed, 270 Mo. 405; Johnson v. Houston, 47 Mo. 227; Shane v. Hoberecht, 117 Mo. 31; Bassett v. O'Brien, 149 Mo. 390; Siemers v. Schrader, 88 Mo. 23; Bailey v. Winn, 101 Mo. 636; Hunter v. Henan, 181 S.W. 397; Kincaid v. Estes, 262 S.W. 399; Guaranty National v. McGirk State Bank, 294 S.W. 456; Commerce Trust Co. v. McGirk Bank, 300 S.W. 526; Sec. 845, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. v. Arnold, 30 S.W.2d 1015; Downs v. Horton, 287 Mo. 414; Morgan v. Meulcahey, 298 S.W. 242; Grafeman Dairy Co. v. Mercantile Club, 241 S.W. 927. (b) The deeds of February 5 constituted a complete defense. Fuchs v. Leahy, 9 S.W.2d 900; Stufflebaum v. Peabler, 274 S.W. 929; Davis v. Foreman, 229 Mo. 51; Tighe v. Locke, 299 S.W. 405. (c) The contract alone vested good equitable title in defendant Hoppenjon for the benefit of defendant Rechner. Lambert v. Railroad, 272 Mo. 709; Shaffer v. Detie, 191 Mo. 292; Block v. Morrison, 112 Mo. 350; Mahan v. Ins. Co., 205 Mo.App. 592. (d) Plaintiff's action is barred by estoppel. Grafeman Dairy Co. v. Mercantile Club, 241 S.W. 927; Wilson v. Reed, 270 Mo. 405. (e) The judgment of Justice of the Peace Pollock was a complete defense. Wilson v. Treece, 184 Mo.App. 140; Adams v. Gilchrist, 63 Mo.App. 645; State ex rel. v. Dickman, 146 Mo.App. 410; Dale v. Parker, 143 Mo.App. 98; Robinson v. Mining Co., 55 Mo.App. 667; Laughlin v. Wells, 183 S.W. 993; Ellsworth v. Wilhan, 186 S.W. 1128; State ex rel. v. Joyce, 269 S.W. 623; State ex rel. v. Pollock, 310 Mo. 620; Bridge & Transit Co. v. Blaser, 318 Mo. 373; Reger v. Reger, 316 Mo. 1328; Haver v. Haver, 240 S.W. 456; State v. McCord, 207 Mo. 519; Faulkner v. Davenport, 70 Mo. 541; Gerhardt v. Brady, 72 Mo.App. 138; Bingham v. Kollman, 256 Mo. 589; State ex rel. v. Wilson, 216 Mo. 274; Belk v. Hamilton, 130 Mo. 292; Fulkerson v. Davenport, 70 Mo. 541. (3) The court erred in the admission of evidence of the dealings between plaintiff and Hansen; again erred in refusing to withdraw the evidence upon the motion of the defendants at the close of plaintiff's evidence; and again erred in refusing to give the defendants' requested Instruction E at the end of the case, to withdraw the evidence from the consideration of the jury. Authorities 2 (a), supra. (4) The court erred in admitting evidence offered by the plaintiff for the purpose of impeaching the justice of the peace judgment and transcript. Authorities 2 (e), supra. (5) The court erred in submitting the case to the jury without any instruction defining the issues. Sullivan v. Railway, 12 S.W.2d 740. (6) The court erred in modifying defendants' requested Instruction I. Authorities 2 (c) and (d), supra. (7) The court erred in refusing defendants' Instruction K as requested, and giving the instruction in modified form. Authorities 2 (e), supra. (8) The court erred in refusing defendants' Instructions C, F and G. (a) Instruction C, by which defendants sought to advise the jury that plaintiff was not entitled to have any damages for the rental value of the property, was manifestly a proper instruction. (b) Instructions F and G should have been given for the reasons sufficiently discussed under Point 2. Authorities 2, supra. (9) The court erred in providing for an award of damages in addition to possession, in the only form of verdict given the jury in the event they should find for the plaintiff. (10) Irrespective of the other parties and of any other question in the case defendant, Emma L. Rechner, was not liable for damages and the judgment should be reversed because of such award and the errors committed in that regard. (11) The verdict was excessive.

J. M. Johnson, C. W. Prince, James N. Beery and Walter A. Raymond for respondent.

(1) The action is one at law and was properly tried to a jury. State v. Evans, 176 Mo. 310, 75 S.W. 914; Minor v. Burton, 228 Mo. 558, 128 S.W. 964; Pearson v. Heumann, 294 Mo. 526, 242 S.W. 946; Jacobs v. Waldron, 298 S.W. 773; Petersen v. Larson, 285 Mo. 119, 225 S.W. 704; Newbrough v. Moore, 202 S.W. 547; Ebbs v. Neff, 30 S.W.2d 616; Morse v. Bates, 99 Mo.App. 564; Hunt v. Hunt, 307 Mo. 375, 270 S.W. 367; Tobener v. Hassinbusch, 56 Mo.App. 591; Avery v. Kemp, 196 S.W. 1072. (2) The verdict for the plaintiff was sustained by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. Burton v. Maupin, 281 S.W. 90; McCarty v. Hemker, 4 S.W.2d 1094; Farmers Bank v. Handly, 9 S.W.2d 891; Dietrich v. Ice Co., 286 S.W. 43; Houtz v. Hellman, 228 Mo. 655, 128 S.W. 1006; 12 C. J. 545; 5 C. J. 1088; Goff v. Roberts, 72 Mo. 572; Bales v. Roberts, 189 Mo. 49, 87 S.W. 914; Barber v. Nunn, 275 Mo. 565, 205 S.W. 14; Wolfersberger v. Miller, 39 S.W.2d 763; Leimkuehler v. Wessendorf, 18 S.W.2d 451. (3) At the time defendant Rechner purchased the note the interest thereon was past due and unpaid and bore on its face notice of its dishonor. Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 339; Bank v. Brisch, 156 Mo.App. 631, 136 S.W. 28; Yeomans v. Nachman, 198 Mo.App. 195, 198 S.W. 180; Ricketts v. Finkelston, 211 S.W. 399; McCorkle v. Miller, 64 Mo.App. 156. (4) There was no issue of estoppel in the case. Thompson v. Lindsey, 242 Mo. 76; Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W.2d 90; Egan v. Woelfel, 18 S.W.2d 50; 12 R. C. L. 405; Milwaukee & Minn. Railroad v. Soutter, 13 Wall. 317, 20 L.Ed. 546; Farmers Bank v. Handly, 9 S.W.2d 895; 27 C. J. 673. (5) The judgment of Justice of the Peace Pollock is of no probative force (a) The judgment of Justice Pollock for possession is not res judicata of plaintiff's title in this action. Sampson v. Mitchell, 125 Mo. 217, 28 S.W. 768; Flemming v. Tatum, 232 Mo. 678, 135 S.W. 61; Swearingin v. Swearingin, 202 S.W. 557; Edmonds v. Scharff, 279 Mo. 78, 213 S.W. 824; Thompson v. Lindsay, 242 Mo. 53, 77, 45 S.W. 472; Witte v. Storm, 236 Mo. 470, 139 S.W. 384. (b) The judgment of Justice Pollock was void on its face. Bonner Mfg. Co. v. Silverman, 196 S.W. 378; Obernier v. Williams, 226 S.W. 42; Peters v. Simpson, 241 S.W. 463; State ex rel. Harris v. Galloway, 24 S.W.2d 711. (c) Judge Pollock was wholly without jurisdiction of the cause pleaded as res judicata and his judgment is void. Altergott v. O'Connor, 6 S.W.2d 1014; Jackson v. McKee, 28 S.W.2d 408; State Bank of Sugar Creek v. Anderson, 36 S.W.2d 140; Travalent v. Kelley-Heppert, 16 S.W. 709; McKenna v. Wittman, 25 S.W.2d 541; Edmonds v. Scharff, 279 Mo. 78, 213 S.W. 823. (6) There was no error in admitting testimony of the dealings between plaintiff and Hansen and in refusing to withdraw such evidence by defendants' Instruction E. See cases cited under Point 2. (7) The court committed no error in admitting evidence impeaching the judgment of Justice Pollock. See cases cited under Point 5. (8) The court committed no error in submitting the case to the jury without instructions on behalf of plaintiff. Winfield v. Wabash, 257 Mo. 347, 166 S.W. 1041; Hutchcraft v. Gas Light Co., 282 S.W. 44; Ternetz v. Cement Co., 252 S.W. 70. (9) The court committed no error prejudicial to defendant in giving defendants' Instruction I as modified. (10) The court committed no error in refusing defendants' Instruction K and giving same as modified. (11) The court committed no error in refusing defendants' Instructions C and G. (12) The court did not err in directing the jury as to the form of verdict. McCrary v. Rv. Co., 99 Mo.App. 518; Lampert v. Drug Co., 238 Mo. 409, 141 S.W. 1097; King v. St. Louis, 250 Mo. 501, 157 S.W. 498; McCutchin v. Batterton, 1 Mo. 342; Jones v. Hannovan, 55 Mo. 462; Bungenstork v. Nishnabotna Drainage Dist., 163 Mo. 198, 64 S.W. 149. (13) The verdict is not excessive. (14) The judgment should be affirmed as to all defendants, including defendant Emma L. Rechner. Leimkuehler v. Wessendorf, 18 S.W.2d 451; Kennish v. Safford, 193 Mo.App. 362, 184 S.W. 923; Bailey v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 72 Ind.App. 84, 121 N.E. 128; State ex rel. Cunningham v. Haid, 40 S.W.2d 1049; Bartlett v. McCallister, 289 S.W. 814; Illinois Fuel Co. v. Railroad, 8 S.W.2d 942; 21 C. J. 1346, sec. 257; 21 C. J. 1235, sec. 241.

Fitzsimmons, C. Cooley and Westhues, CC., concur.

OPINION

FITZSIMMONS

Respondent (plaintiff...