Yates v. Brown

• Decision Date: 28 February 1920
• Docket Number: No. 2558.,2558.
• Citation: 218 S.W. 895
• Parties: YATES et al. v. BROWN (HENSON, Interpleader).
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

218 S.W. 895

YATES et al. v. BROWN (HENSON, Interpleader).

No. 2558.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 28, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; Almon Ing, Judge.

Action by C. W. Yates and others, partners as Yates, Craft & Calvin, against J. H. Brown; interplea being filed by Nora Henson. Judgment for interpleader, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

John L. Poynor and Henson & Woody, all of Poplar Bluff, for appellants.

Francis M. Kinder and B. J. Puckett, both of Poplar Bluff, for respondent.

BRADLEY, J.

Plaintiffs, a copartnership, proceeded by attachment against defendant, Brown, to recover on a note. Under the writ the sheriff attached, according to the return, "one crib of corn, about 500 bushels, and one span of work horses," as the property of Brown. Mrs. Nora Henson filed an interplea claiming the corn. Issue was joined on the interplea and tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the interpleader. Failing to get a new trial, plaintiffs appealed.

The interpleader, a widow with three children, a boy 19, a boy 14, and a girl 10, with Brown, lived together on a rented farm near Broseley, in Butler county. They had two places, the one on the "deadening road" consisting of about "25 acres in patches," where they lived, and the lower place containing about 45 acres. Brown rented the land from the owner, but interpleader says:

That be rented it "for the boys"; that "my boys did the farming last year. We raised abort 600 bushels of corn on the lower Marshall farm; all of us raised about that amount; my boys raised about 400 bushels. I bought 200 bushels from Brown that was raised on that farm. The corn I bought was in the field. It was all gathered at the same time. I gathered it and hauled it to Broseley. It was cribbed there at my mill, and is there now. That is the corn the sheriff attached."

Brown, testifying as a witness for interpleader, says:

That he sold the corn to interpleader, and that she paid him for it. "My health was bad this fall, and I was getting ready to go away, and about the last of November I sold her my part of this Marshall crop, after the rent was paid. We figured my part at about 200 bushels. The balance of the corn was raised by the boys."

Another witness named Brown testified:

That he was present the latter part of November at interpleader's when she bought the corn. "Mrs. Henson bought all the corn for $1.50 per bushel in the field."

Walter Henson, interpleader's 19 year old son, testified:

That Brown rented the land, "and then he rented it out to me and my brother here. That crop of corn on the 18th day of January belonged to me and my mother."

This witness estimated that Brown had about 200 bushels. The attachment was served on January 18, 1919, and according to interpleader she bought Brown's corn the latter part of November prior. In her interplea the interpleader avers that the crib of corn attached "really contained 620 bushels," and the evidence indicates that this is about correct. Except for some circumstances tending to show that Brown had more than 200 bushels to his part, and that he had not in fact sold any corn to interpleader, there is nothing tending to contradict interpleader's version.

For plaintiffs the court instructed that, if the jury found that at the time of the attachment the crib of corn in question belonged to defendant, Brown, then the verdict would be for plaintiffs, and that the burden of proving her ownership of the corn attached was on the interpleader, and that, unless the jury found that the interpleader had established by the greater weight of evidence that she was at the date of the levy the real owner of said corn in good faith, the verdict would be for defendant.

For the interpleader the court instructed:

"The court instructs the jury that, if you find and believe from the evidence that Nora Henson bought for a valuable consideration the corn or any part thereof (italics ours) which was attached in this suit while the corn was still in the field, and the same was then gathered and put in Nora Henson's crib at her instance and request, then the title to said corn so bought and cribbed passed to Nora Henson, and she became the owner thereof, and your verdict should be in favor of the interpleader, Nora Henson."

Plaintiffs complain in their motion for a new trial about the admission and exclusion of evidence, and assign as error the admission of incompetent, irrelevent, immaterial, and prejudicial evidence. None of the alleged improper evidence is pointed out, and the record discloses that no objections were made to the admission of evidence except, one, and that was sustained. Also plaintiffs contend that their instruction in the nature of a demurrer should have been...