| Mo. Ct. App. | Nov 9, 1885
This is an action begun before a justice of the peace, upon a verbal contract, for the failure of defendant to deliver cars for the transportation of stock on the day agreed upon in the contract. The statement in this case is, in all essential respects, the same as the petition in the case of Harrison v. The Mo. Pacific Railway Co. (74 Mo. 364" court="Mo." date_filed="1881-10-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/harrison-v-missouri-pacific-railway-co-8006902?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8006902">74 Mo. 364).
Judgment by default was rendered against the defendant. The defendant appealed to the circuit court.
During the trial the plaintiff in testifying said, among other things: “My commission men gave an account of sales, which shows the weights of my stock.” Against the defendant’s objections the court permitted the plaintiff to introduce in evidence the said account of sales, which is as follows s
*? “Sales by CAMPBELL, LANCASTER & CO.
■« Sold for account of O. If. Hoskins:
Date. Cattle. Hogs. Weight. Dock. Price. Amount.
.January 26, 39 .. 47,580 .. $4 90 $2,33142
“ ‘ 26, .. 25 4,930 20 6 20 304 42
« 26, .. 35 10,210 80 6 30 638 19
Total...............................................$3,274.03
CHARGES.
Freight and back charges........ $144 00
Yardage........................ 13 30
Hay........................... ' 6 00
■Com........................... 2 00
■Commission.................... 24 50
Net proceeds................... 3,084 23 $3,274 03. ”
For plaintiff Z. B. Moore testified : “ I am agent at ■Clinton, Missouri, for the firm of Campbell, Lancaster & ■Company, live stock commission merchants at East St. Louis, and they forward me reports of the market each day. They 'forwarded me the following report of the market for January 26, 1883 : ”
Which report the court, against defendant’s objection, permitted the plaintiff to introduce in evidence. Sufficient of the report is here copied to indicate its •character:
“Campbell, Lancaster & Co.,
“ LI YE STOCK COMMISSION MERCHANTS.
“National Stock Yards, Ill, )
‘‘ Friday, Jan. 26, 1883, 3 p. m. )
“Receipts past 24 hours, 1,250 cattle; 3,150 hogs; 1,520 sheep.
“ Cattle, heavy shipping steers are slow and from 10c. to 15c. lower than yesterday. Medium-weight steers are .about 10c. lower and slower, but light shipping steers are fairly active, and only a shade lower. Coarse, uneven ■cattle are irregular and dull. Butchers’ cattle ruled fairly active and steady. There is a good inquiry for fresh milch cows.
“hollowing- are eepeesentiye sales to-day:
13 Mixed Butciiers.... 873, $4 00
16 Native Butchers.... 944, 4 25
12 Native Cows........ 838, 3 75
10 Southwest Steers... 940, 4 00
■37 Native Butchers.... 1043, 4 35
18 Native Steers....... 1181,-4 80
17 Native Steers........ 994, 4 60
17 Native Steers........ 1238, 4 70
14 Native Cows........ 972, 3 37
37 Native Steers....... 1276, 5 05
32 Native Steers....... 1179, 4 96
39 Native Steers....... 1220, 4 90
17 Native Steers...... 1365, $4 45
15Native Steers....... 1028, 4 60
14 Native Bulls........ 1403, 3 65
14 Native Steers....... 1192, 4 80
13 Native Steers....... 1432, 5 30
24 Native Steers....... 1377, 5 50
17 Native Steers....... 1277, 5 10
29 Native Steers....... 1152, 4 55
34 Native Steers....... 1360, 5 50
21 Native Steers....... 1049, 4 75
57 Native Steers....... 1008, 4 75
19 Native Steers....... 1171, 4 70
The defendant offered in evidence the written contract for the shipment of the stock, afterwards made by it with the plaintiff ; upon objection by plaintiff the court refused to permit defendant to introduce the contract in evidence.
Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff the defendant has appealed to this court. In this court defendant •complains of the rulings made by the court below, as to the admissibility of the testimony mentioned.
I.
We are unable to see any ground on which it can be maintained that the “ account of sales,” sent to plaintiff by his commission men is admissible testimony. It was clearly hearsay testimony and inadmissible. The fact that the “account” was in writing did not change its character. Had it been made verbally to the plaintiff it would have been hearsay; and the plaintiff could not have repeated it to the jury. O’ Neil v. Grain, 67 Mo. 251; Fogue v. Burgess, 71 Mo. 389" court="Mo." date_filed="1880-04-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/fougue-v-burgess-8006450?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8006450">71 Mo. 389 ; Gable v. McDaniel, 33 Mo. 363" court="Mo." date_filed="1863-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/coble-v-mcdaniel-8001301?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8001301">33 Mo. 363; Wood v. Hicks, 36 Mo. 327; Langsdorf et al. v. Field et al., 36 Mo. 441. Had the facts, stated in the “account,” been stated in the form of a receipt given to plaintiff by his commission men, the receipt would have
II.
The report sent by Campbell, Lancaster & Company to their agent, Moore, was also inadmissible.
In Gibson et at. v. Ebert et al. (52 Mo. 264), from the statement of the case it appears that “the plaintiffs also introduced the deposition of one Chism, by which the price of bagging was proved in July, 1870, and with which deposition there was an exhibit filed, proved by said deposition to be a price-current issued at New Orleans at said time. This price-current was rejected as evidence by the court, as being irrelevant, and incompetent, and the plaintiff excepted.” In treating of this question, Judge Tories, who delivered the opinion of the court, on page 270, says : “The price-current at New Orleans, offered in evidence by the plaintiffs, was, also, properly excluded by the court. There, at least, should have been satisfactory evidence that it contained a correct statement of the prices by all who knew the fact in order to admit it in evidence. The price-current was only secondary and not the best evidence of the material fact to be proved, which was the actual price or value of bagging on the fifteenth day of July, 1870 * * This case being in point, we are bound by it.
III.
This case, not only as to the petition or statement, but as to the facts, is substantially the same as the case of Harrison v. R. R. Co., supra. For the reasons given in the opinion in that case the trial court in this case properly refused to permit the defendant to read the contract in evidence.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.