Sommer v. Bryson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sommer v. Bryson

153 S.W. 1069, 168 Mo. App. 335, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 543

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 153 S.W. 1069 (Sommer v. Bryson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sommer v. Bryson, 153 S.W. 1069, 168 Mo. App. 335, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 543 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff’s action, begun before a justice of the peace, is based on a claim of $59.53 and interest due on a guaranty by defendant of certain merchandise, and interest “on personal account,” all aggregating $66.88. Defendant filed a counterclaim for “ comrüissions ” in the sum of $300 and interest at six per cent from December 15, 1910. On appeal to the circuit court plaintiff was allowed $64.96 and defendant allowed on his counterclaim $326.25. Plaintiff thereupon appealed to this court.

Whatever merit there may have been originally in plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s counterclaim, there is none at this stage, after the facts have .been found against him on a trial properly conducted. There were no instructions asked and the trial was without a jury.

It seems that plaintiff manufactured a product known as “viscol” and that defendant was his exclusive agent for its sale in Kansas City and vicinity, [336]*336under a contract dated December 1, 1904. Plaintiff claims that this contract was abandoned or superseded by one dated November 10, 1905, and that therefore defendant’s counterclaim based on the first contract should not have been allowed. • But there was evidence tending to show that each party regarded the first contract as in force for several years, after the alleged second contract. Furthermore, there was evidence tending to prove that the paper designated as the second contract was not regarded as a contract signed by both parties, but more in the nature of a bond.

There was ample evidence tending to support the charge made by defendant for commissions. Where no instructions are asked to indicate the trial court’s view of the law, it will be presumed that it took the correct view. [Bethune v. Railroad, 139 Mo. l. c. 580; Gibson v. Bailey Co., 114 Mo. App. 350, 357.]

The objection to testimony was not well taken. Finding no error affecting the merits of the action, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff’s action, begun before a justice of the peace, is based on a claim of $59.53 and interest due on a guaranty by defendant of certain merchandise, and interest “on personal account,” all aggregating $66.88. Defendant filed a counterclaim for “ comrüissions ” in the sum of $300 and interest at six per cent from December 15, 1910. On appeal to the circuit court plaintiff was allowed $64.96 and defendant allowed on his counterclaim $326.25. Plaintiff thereupon appealed to this court.

Whatever merit there may have been originally in plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s counterclaim, there is none at this stage, after the facts have .been found against him on a trial properly conducted. There were no instructions asked and the trial was without a jury.

It seems that plaintiff manufactured a product known as “viscol” and that defendant was his exclusive agent for its sale in Kansas City and vicinity, [336]*336under a contract dated December 1, 1904. Plaintiff claims that this contract was abandoned or superseded by one dated November 10, 1905, and that therefore defendant’s counterclaim based on the first contract should not have been allowed. • But there was evidence tending to show that each party regarded the first contract as in force for several years, after the alleged second contract. Furthermore, there was evidence tending to prove that the paper designated as the second contract was not regarded as a contract signed by both parties, but more in the nature of a bond.

There was ample evidence tending to support the charge made by defendant for commissions. Where no instructions are asked to indicate the trial court’s view of the law, it will be presumed that it took the correct view. [Bethune v. Railroad, 139 Mo. l. c. 580; Gibson v. Bailey Co., 114 Mo. App. 350, 357.]

The objection to testimony was not well taken. Finding no error affecting the merits of the action, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.W. 1069, 168 Mo. App. 335, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sommer-v-bryson-moctapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack