*1 213 REPORTS, APPEAL Eggimann v. Houck. opinion foregoing of PER CURIAM: The Davis, judg- adopted opinion of the court.
C., as the accordingly ment affirmed. of circuit court P. concur. Allen, JJ., J., Danes, Becker Respondent, HOUCK, v. LOUIS EGGIMANN, EMELIE
Appellant. Opinion Appeals. St. Louis Court of Filed November BONDS; Fledged Negotiable: Owner’s Without Government Bonds: Acquired Faith, Recoverable. Where in etc.: Not Consent: Good another, living, of obtained with whom consent, belonging negotiable government her her without bonds per- his to secure with collateral them defendant debt, appeared defendant had the evidence that sonal and it from notice, acquired course, and while and without the bonds due consideration, good faith, acting the debt valuable and for a pledgor the amount excess of owed defendant which the portion any them. of could not recover of Appeal Cape Court Common Girardeau from the Judge. Snider, A. John
Pleas.—Hon. (with directions). and remanded Reversed appellant. Sprading Dalton & appellant of at 1. The demurrers close re- again spondent’s close all the evidence been sustained in the case should have States Government Bonds The United Numbered court. 49239 and They were of the third issue. were May, day 4th and would mature in on the dated Appellant acquired to bearer. 1928 and they before consideration, a valuable any defect notice A. and withoiit due claim or without notice of the re- Feuerhahn, E. delivery spondent A for such bonds.
Eggimann v. Houck.
question
passed
such circumstances
title. Wal-
Savings
Tielkemeyer,
ters v.
Institution
*2
App.
v.
1
v.
Heinsman, Mo.
336;
Lowenstein,
Courtial
78
App.
App.
Mo.
v.
485;
Harris,
Allen
79 Mo.
490; Mud v.
App.
Bank, 175 Mo.
Voss v.
398;
Chamberlain, 19 L. R.
(N. S.)
Angus
(N. S.)
A.
R.
v.
L. A.
106;
Downs, 57
351;
Negotiable
(5 Ed.),
Daniels on
Instruments
secs. 837,
negotiable
1582. 2. The doctrine that
instruments once
pass by
delivered will therafter
a transfer or indorsement
purchasers
to bona-fide
without reference
value,
to
any
applied
defect
title
holder’s
has been
to Gov-
ernment bonds
after
stolen
issue.
v. Mellis,
Jones
41 111.
Seybel
482;
v.
54 N. T.
Bank,
288. 3. The same doctrine
apply
has been held to
to state bonds that have been stolen
from the
v.
holder. Com. Bank,
doctrine has been to bonds. Garvin (2) v. 83 111.215. 1. Wiswell, At the time the United appellant Government bonds States delivered security collateral for the notes A. executed E. Feuer- appellant hahn, the had no notice of defect in the party delivering pre- the bonds and the law delivery that there been a. sumed had valid of the bonds prior parties Angus him. all R. S. 1919; Sec. (N. S.) Downs, 57 L. A. 351. v. holds from 2. The fact that one security prevent the note as collateral does not him being in due holder course. Bank v. 156 Morris, App. v. 43; Mo. Miller 195 Chinn, S. W. 552; Bank v. (3) Respondent’s 1. Brown, 187 S. 785.W. instruction appellant’s in conflict with instructions 1 numbered 2. instructions and When two conflict, and the are given by appellant right, giving one then the of respondent error for ones which the case should rel. v. 270 reversed. State ex Mo. Ellison, 645; Man- Imp. Ritchie, Co. Mo. 587; sur-Tebbetts 143 Calhoun 277. 2. 1 Schaff, 229 S. v. W. Instructions and 2 appellant are correct behalf declarations of on iaAv. Tielkemeyer, App. Savings 72 Mo. 371; v. Walters Insti- App. v. 1 Mo. Heinsman, 336; Courtial v. tution Lowen- App. App. 485; Allen v. 79 Mo. Mo. stein, Harris, 78 490. recovery instruction authorized a Respondent’s if 213 APPEAL REPORTS,
Eggimann v. Ilouck. certificate of bonds and she owned the possession of them without her took Alvin Feuerhahn permission, knowledge them or consent not now never That instruction is Houck. Louis cases law in this State. See cited has been the appellant’s paragraph brief. The jur- 1, Subdivision 1 excluding question asked the trial court erred qualifications touching their on dire examination ors voir was entitled to trial be- cause. Plaintiff to serve the. prejudice, jury order free from fore bias jurors possessed prospective whether determine right questions, the to ask such qualifications might tend to elicit such information. to which answer App. Romine, Bank v. Mo. 589; Mann, v. Mo. State Co., Transit 191 Mo. Sailer v. Shoe Theobald Co., *3 respondent. Lor
Wilson Cramer
disputed
Liberty
(1)
that the
is not
Bonds
It
belonged
Eggimann
deposit
to Emilie
certificates of
by Feuerhahn
her box and used
without
taken out
knowledge
He had no interest
them,
or consent.
her
(2)
papers feloniously.
the
obtained
but
showing,
tending
record
the
evidence
There is no
agent
Eggiman,
was the
of Mrs.
Feuerhahn
that
show,
anything
that she ratified
to establish
what
there
nor is
questions
agency and ratification
had done.
he
jury in defendant’s instructions
to the
submitted
(3)
against
In-
the defendant.
found
6 and
5 and
Nos.
by
defendant should have
1 and
asked
Nos.
structions
by
no other reason because
court if for
the
refused
'been
only
preclude plaintiff’s right
they
the
relate
deposit.
(4)
The transaction
the certificate
recover
pledge,
a
not a sale,
was
which
consideration
things
purchaser for
value
became a
defendant
pledge
accepted
ás a
the collateral
pledged. He
only
special property
acquire
in the
therefor
could
p.
Usury,
Tyler
things pledged.
Pawns and Loans,
on
p.
Feuerlialm had no and conld pass none to the defendant, so he obtained no lien thereon against Tyler Eggimann. Usury, the owner, Mrs. on p. Pawns and Loans,
NIPPER, C. This is the second time this case has appeal. reached this on to which court See S. W. complete reference is made statement of the facts. only appeal, difference on far as evidence this so G-iboney that who acted for the concerned, Houck, trial defendant last transaction, testified gov that Feuerhahn him at he told the time delivered the ernment bonds and the if the that, certificate of paid by September debt was not the collateral was 30th, to be sold or cashed defendant. also testified that, He he at the he took the bonds and certificate did time know that made claim to he them; paper bought in the that Feuerhahn had $5,000 noticed Liberty thought he and that Bonds, worth pur getting part which Feuerhahn had nothing chased. There is any knowledge to indicate defendant had defect of Feuerhahn’s title appear question. The facts to be that Mrs. securities seventy- Eggimann, was about this age, years of Feuerhahn resided at the home four husband had raised and her deceased wife. She and his boyhood. husband’s After her death from Feuerhahn him. had two one thousand to live with She went she maturing May, government dated dollars years to bearer. Feuer made date, *4 after and ten plaintiff kept possession box which of ’a hahn obtained placed the bonds and and in which she had her bed, under deposit. deposit was certificate certificate payable thereon was to and her endorsement her, made by certificate forgery took the Feuerhahn. Feuerhahn a deposited deposit them as col two and the bonds and Feuerhahn owed defendant. which he debt lateral if be returned the the securities to that testified September paid and that de 30, 1918, was not debt proceed he suit which attachment was to with an fendant A, 213 M. —33 REPORTS, APPEAL
Eggimann- v. Houck. deposited begun Feuérhahn but later dismissed when by defend- denied the securities as collateral. This was re- agent, to be securities were ant’s is that the that turned. nature
The defendant asked an instruction the plaintiff’s at and case, both at the close of a demurrer, government far the close of whole the so the judg- There was a verdict and were concerned. possession for the the second trial ment for government deposit and the the of both certificate record that de- from this We do not understand bonds. contending to the certificate is he entitled fendant payable plain- concededly deposit made which was forged by thereon Feuerhahn. endorsement tiff and her nature of a demurrer were over- instructions court. ruled requested, instruction, one
Plaintiff and amounting in substance, effect, and that one jury pos- if Feuerhahn to the took that, to the statement government and of the certificate session n permission, knowledge, or consent of without plaintiff, as collateral them defendant security of his the verdict must be for notes own, plaintiff. clearly judgment that this verdict
It is evident permitted nego stand. These bonds cannot payable At to bearer. common it is law tiable, purchases into who or comes rule, one acquires except property, no title thereto of stolen exception But an to this rule made conditions. certain having legal inception negotiable paper. Bonds toas pur negotiable paper, are bearer although they have been ac stolen, chaser against pro good quires thereto as the true owner, good purchased faith and for a valuable con vided [Morgan States, v. United S.U. sideration. Wylie Fed. 1 A. L. R. Co., Missouri Pacific 717.] suggestion in this no recor'd that defend-
There is acquire Government bonds due course, ant did
Rhodes v. Mo. Pac.
R. Co.
n withoutnotice
acting
good
and
and while
this
faith,
being
plaintiff
them.
so,
could
recover
v.
[Downs
though
287 Mo.
230 S.
And
Horton,
103.]
even
414,
W.
security,
the bonds
held
defendant as collateral
yet he
them in due
course without
and
notice,
is
protection
though
entitled to the same
anwas
abso
purchaser.
lute
Abernathy,
[Merchants’
bona-fide
National Bank v.
App.
Logan
32 Mo.
Smith et
211;
al.,
Mo.
687.]
Bank v.
124 Mo.
Eubanks,
S.
W.
holding
Defendant was
the bonds as collateral se
curity for a valid
and the
consideration,
debt which
Feuerhahn owed defendant
excess
the amount
bonds,-plaintiff
part
of the
was entitled to no
of the same.
—
McCrory,
App
[Fifth-Third National Bank v.
,
.—
Grayson,
S.
177 W.
Johnson v.
ter for the deposit, gov- for the certificate defendant for the question. ernment bonds opinion foregoing PER CURIAM: The Nipper, opinion adopted judgment as the of the court.
C., accordingly court circuit reversed, cause judgment with remanded, directions to enter in accord- ance with the recommendations of the Commissioner. Al- P. Becker and len, J., Danes, JJ., concur. Respondent, RHODES,
BELL MISSOURI PACIFIC Corporation, Appellant. RAILROAD COMPANY, Appeals. Opinion St. Louis Court of Filed November Passenger Injured: Ipsa Loquitur 1. NEGLIGENCE: Railroads: Res Sufficiency. petition charging agents, Doctrine: Petition: A employees charge servants the defendant con train, trolling carelessly, Ifully, negligently op unski1 feo erated that after the same entered the door