*1 559- enacting purpose evident which he sentenced. The part encourage willingness on the the statute stimulate and institution voluntarily comply with the of convicts to rules conduct, by undergoing punishment. own reflected while Their as prison, measure the official records which there predetermined withheld reward for either bestowed or fixed and orderly prison dis co-operation promoting administration cipline. parole carry pun while on own Infractions of law their and the re ishment, petitioner, as witness sentence of provisions under parole. sultant revocation of his of the statute petitioner under scrutiny parole conditions of which large County convicted in are in no when Lewis sense related interdependent. provisions supra, part'of Section every become
As effect judgment actually of conviction with much as if written therein, follow, foregoing it, it must under construction discharge. entitled to petitioner accordingly. It is ordered All concur.
George E. O’Meara v. C. Motor Company, Jeck
Appellants S. W. 897. . 122 One,
Division December 1938. *3 E. Sparrow appellants; Warren Morris, McCarthy, & Smith Talcott of counsel.
Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson Young, & Richmond Coburn, C. B. Buckley White, Forder White & White respondent.
565 BBADLEY, alleged deceit, an action for fraud and C . This is jury. against and was tried a The verdict and was for defendants, assessing damages punitive dam- $14,000, at actual ages $10,000, judgment accordingly. new went Motion for trial appealed. was overruled and defendants assigned refusal, (1) case,
Error the close of on the of separate defendants’ a instructions in of demurrer nature (2) evidence; given (3) plaintiff; on for on re- instructions requested defendants; (4) certain fusal of instructions on al- leged parties (5) evidence; plaintiff; defect of the admission on of (6) damages; support punitive was no evidence (7) alleged excessive verdict. appeal is the in this cause. al., This second v. O’Meara Jeck et [See 107 S. At the first trial 782.] damages for $15,775.67 punitive
verdict actual in sum of damages damages $10,000. in the sum of verdict included actual trial, required in the $1775.67. interest sum of At first court a of punitive damages. $2500 remittitur from the On the trial soug'ht no interest damages no remittitur of re- punitive quired. change pleadings at No was made in the the second trial. opinion former In the petition we stated substance and" opinion make reference fuller statement as pe- to the general tition. The answer was here give, denial. We in part, petition. our former relative statement to the alleged “Plaintiff Company that the Chevrolet Motor of St. Louis engaged manufacture, sale, in the and distribution Louis, company cars in St. and that said sole and exclusive manufacturer distributor such cars in Louis, St. and Missouri O’Meara, generally; defendant, employ was in the of said com- Louis, manager pany zone in St. parts its and other of Missouri Illinois; manager, zone part as such O’Meara ‘was au- thorized, authorized, be or held himself out to to be charge his engaged selling’
all Chevrolet cars sales to retail dealers authorized, out himself zone and that held O’Meara authorized, Chevrolet dealers supervise all control retail have had to what zone; zone that all retail dealers Louis, Company St. called from Chevrolet Motor franchise *7 is- cars, franchise was in that such order handle Chevrolet O’Meara, the approval and only upon sued the recommendation of control, manager; franchise, supervision, by zone of said virtue by manager, the defendant Chevro- etc., maintained O’Meara as zone Holding Company, Motors Company, let General Motor the Motors group, belonging Motors Accounting Company, all General sales, finances, adver- supervised distribution, controlled management, accounts, system, tising, policy, bookkeeping business etc., within handling of all licensed retail dealers Chevrolet cars supervised, etc., zone, among and that included the retail dealers so cars, retail Company, the Lindell a dealer of Chevrolet was Chevrolet Boulevard, Louis; Company had at 3949 Lindell Lindell St. retail, engaged selling parts, in been Chevrolet cars and under defendant, Company, Motor for some franchise from the Chevrolet 15, date, O’Meara, prior 1931; shortly prior time to June to said manager defendant, for Motor himself and as zone for the Chevrolet plaintiff $15,000 Company, inducing of purpose in invest capital Company, stock of the Lindell false fraud- Chevrolet ulently represented plaintiff.” specifications Then follows eleven of fraud.
At trial, plaintiff charges the first went to jury on fraud of pleaded eighth in specifications. (See opinion and ninth 107 former 783-4). S. W. l. c.
We appeal alleged on the former representations ruled that the false promissory, is, future, submitted were and not related to past existing trial, or plaintiff facts. At the second went jury alleged representations only, phrased false plaintiff’s in instruction as follows: ‘‘That said Lindell Chev- Company ‘rolet solvent good and in financial was condition.” say Defendants that the demurrer evidence to the have been should 2970, 1929, sustained of the (Sec. because Statute of R. Frauds S. Ann., 2970, 1858) ; p. Stat. sec. that there no was substantial tending evidence to show that Company Lindell Chevrolet was insolvent stock; when purchased and because it is claimed tending that there was no evidence to show the value stock plaintiff purchased, when upon and therefore evidence which no damages. measure Company Lindell organized October, 1930, in Speilberg. A. Capital $50,000. D. stock Speilberg was to together, M. $25,000 Yenner (whether jointly in stock does
567 $15,000 $10,000. The Benjamin remaining appear), not and Jerome Speil- Benjamin of what cash, .part put was not subscribed. but ap- not put equipment, what does berg of value and Venner receiving 15, $15,000 stock, pear. 1931, this June invested December preferred 75 shares common stock. shares of against com- 1931, proceedings bankruptcy were commenced The credi- pany adjudged bankrupt February 1932. and was claims, and only per plaintiff’s tors their investment received cent on However, explained here- $1000, was a total he which is loss. received years, making plaintiff, many inafter. Prior investment engaged automobiles, had been in mechanical service on at the Campbell employed by Company salary time Auto- the Fred at a experience financing per $200 month. had had He no automobile companies dealerships. In the part May, latter one Ross, acquaintance suggested plaintiff, to him that getting* Company. “chance in” Ross Lindell company, went to the office this and Ross introduced him to Speilberg, president. arrangements On this occasion were *8 meeting made for evening Speilberg a the next he would and said that present meeting factory (defendant, have at the “some of the Chev- rolet Motor Company) explain representatives to and outline p. situation.” next day seven-thirty meeting about at m., the office Lindell held at of the at the Company, and meeting attorney, White, were his O’Meara, and Samuel manager zone for Company, defendant Mr. Jen- Chevrolet Motor a sen, city manager company, sales for Speilberg. that
Plaintiff testified that Speilberg by off the conversation “started saying: might “Mr. Jeck party probably a that is interested in be thing he this offer, and would hear it like to vre have what is what all he, plaintiff, “Well, about.” That now, just then asked: what investment suggested does this take?” that Speilberg $10,000; that he, plaintiff, that a money then such remarked lot of sum was him; suggested $15,000. “Q. that O’Meara What (O’Meara) he did you tell about of the condition Lindell Company, dealership? thing A. Well, brought another, one Mr. leading O’Meara said that this was one metropolitan dealer- ships city Louis, in you of St. ‘and good should do By business. investing dollars, understand, fifteen thousand deeper you are you get in your it the returns will more investment.’ said, ‘Yes, I nice, very goes that is providing everything right.’ all (O’Meara) ‘Well, go wrong.’ it can’t said, ‘Well, And with that Mr. White what an (White) about audit the books?’ He said, kept ‘I Mr. something by Jeck out having once before I books.audited. don’t go wrong want time.’ to see him said, this Mr. O’Meara ‘that expense. a needless, books are useless Our audited Ac- Motor I audited. Perpetually counting Company, one of our subsidiaries. dealership do- get showing report just what each every .month kind. of that ing. showing stuff get reports sales and I detailed n . . sales, expenses and the report every day have . We dollars without fifty in excess spend dealership and no can Q. tell he factory me. What else did that sanction —and He A. Company? anything, Lindell Chevrolet you, if about good in financial con- company is sound said, top of that this ‘On ” dime.’ you lose a dition can’t meeting'; expressed first his de made decision this Plaintiff no this wife, who did not sit in the matter with sire to talk over his come failing nearby Upon meeting, was in a room. but to think it over talk decision, expressing the desire “Well, according don’t wife, plaintiff, him: O’Meara, his said to long party another that wants there is now, make it too because meeting, thing you days don’t.” A few after this come into this if persons the same were place, was held same another at the meet present. At present, and in addition Mrs. Jeck was the second ‘‘ he ing known that wife come plaintiff testified that made “the meeting;” all down hear of the first the details meeting. along general talk first At the same lines” as at the invested, subject salary, meeting plaintiff’s if he discussed, salary ’Meara would testified that and he O inquiry job what Plaintiff as to he would per $250 month. made have, and that would in fine the service O’Meara said: “You fit department, past end, reconditioning used cars. Your the back experience rebuilding building would automobiles and automobiles you says fit fine that he for that.” Plaintiff remarked that he getting month without indi per investment, $200 then ought month, thought than $250 cated he he have per more if put $15,000, says “Don’t he and he then O’Meara said: *9 salary you. let worry going the end to all the We are cut down sal you. let worry Don’t It the what are you aries. that dividends Also, going after all plaintiff and what count.” testified that buy the meeting second that O’Meara said the was stock ing “every you worth and paying it,” are “be dime for would later on.” worth more than that meeting plaintiff definitely
At second the decided would that he invest, prepare attorney (White) necessary directed his the papers. done thereafter plaintiff paid This was and and on June $15,000, Company to the Lindell Chevrolet and received his stock. go July 1st, He not “in end” did work back until his the and began salary cheeks soon “to bounce back.” Jeck, Speilberg, Company bookkeeper, Mrs. White, Lindell Speilberg and were testified plaintiff. witnesses that at others Jensen; introduced meeting" the first he .O’Meara pre- opportunity ever why this wondering plaintiff “was that reason (plaintiff) “told him the him,” O’Meara and that sented per month) large ($400 drawing salary Benjamin was a Mr. that business, the operation of contributing to the not much and was get there, wanted to and that get him out of we. that we wanted to business;” spoke about an audit of that White capital more into audit “would informed an book's, O’Meara and that White.that unnecessary expense, inasmuch as Account- Motor a needless be constantly opened, we had been ing had been into our office since standing what financial records of that we accurate standing Lin- of the was;” Chevrolet that financial Lindell that k.; that we Company Chevrolet o. were “was solvent dell larger a very business; doing a we were doing were nice that we (Italics ours.) capital take of.” business than we had care meeting, O’Meara, at testified that first the- White good; Company condition the Lindell Chevrolet financial “was company;” suggested a that he to O’Meara that that was solvent any (White) $15,000, before he Mr. invest or other “would-let Jeck audited;” sum, company I that would demand that the books of the necessary; that that O’Meara was not “the Motors .said an audit Company books, Accounting monthly make audit ad- a of the status, get report showing that- a (defendants) daily dition to - words, every of St. other City Chevrolet dealer Louis—in following morning every knew the of the he one deal- status zone.” that O’Meara “it would ers White testified said that ’’ books, something cost like four or five hundred dollars to those audit Accounting that he said Jeck “if Company the Motors are Company auditors for the Lindell authorized au- and the zone, ditors of dealers in that I was satisfied it was a reliable company depend upon and that we -could what Mr. O’Meara said with reference to financial company condition of the books;” status that O’Meara said that make “would $15,000.” lot of money - Mrs. Jeck testified that, meeting, said .that O’Meara company- “the (Lindell Company) is and in a solvent safe, condition;” “you sound financial possibly lose in can’t this proposition at closely. all. The very me business watched We don’t allow agents spend our dealers or $50.00 without over our consent, and you you can’t investment;” lose dime if make this books, that she asked audit and that O’Meara said an audit necessary; was not “that-there a perpetual audit;” got “that a monthly he daily statement and report. said, And he ‘the audit you would cost around four five if hundred dollars *10 these you tell couldn’t you said, ‘I an audit books.’ He made of the ” right not.’
books were all if were they Company, Chevrolet books Lindell that the record shows" condition. investment, in bad plaintiff were at the made his time time, that, that record shows necessary Also, not detail. to It outstanding checks a Company number of Lindell Chevrolet and, we as understand cleared for want of funds that had not at the bank. $7800 record, then had an overdraft company 15, 1931, the Lindell $15,000 in his paid After June plaintiff checks to days thereafter issued Company, -within three totaling $12,002.92; and defendant, Company, Chevrolet Motor Acceptance period General Motors issued two checks to same $2274.36, $2728.05 a to Corporations, check totaling and also record, read Accounting Company. these, All as we Motors when existing Company Lindell Chevrolet were for debts of the invested, There was substan- were" other plaintiff debts. con- financial tending to that O’Meara knew the tial evidence show time he made Company dition of Lindell Chevrolet Also, solvency. company’s representations as that, O’Meara tending there was substantial evidence show when Company representations submitted, made the Lindell Chevrolet insolvent, condition. That plaintiff knew of the he White, attorney, representa- O’Meara’s and his were convinced jury, question upon certainly relied them tions and loss, plaintiff’s except $1000 investment was a total the- questioned-. not making only
O’Meara was the witness for defendants. He denied solvency him, that he the statements as attributed to and said Company “were told that the books the Lindell unsatisfactory in an condition.” gist representations, anof action founded on fraudulent
“The damage defendants, results, appears when is the fraud of and when it at the representation is made which is known to be false time made, upon it is and the whom it is relies it and is person to made thereby injury/ against the mak deceived to -his an action lies party ing proven necessary it. facts are fraud Whenever above give right appears, and the intention to of action deceive suffi Rogers 201, l. ciently al., et al. 64 Mo. c. 204. [Dulaney v. et shown.” See, also, Thompson (2d) 357; v. et al., Becker 336 Mo. 76 S. W. Cantley, County Boone v. 330 Mo. 51 W. S. Defendants 56.] contend, effect, though alleged O’Meara made false that even representations jury, submitted relied thereon, damage, recover, still he cannot -the acted ‘because solvency Company representation the Lindell Chevrolet Statutes, writing.’ (Mo. Revised not in Section Stat.
571 Ann., brought 2970, p. provides sec. 1858), action shall that “no charge person by any upon any representation to reason of or as- or character, credit, ability, concerning conduct, surance made the trade dealings person, representation other any or unless such or as- by writing, party surance be in made subscribed to be charged thereby, person by by lawfully some thereunto him or author- ized.” question (without discussion) adversely
This
was
to defend
ruled
appeal,
on the prior
support
ruling Boyd
ants
and we
in
cite
of our
al.,
v.
Bank
App. 442,
(2d)
et
223 Mo.
14 W.
6.
Farmers
S.
In that
(14
case it is
S.
c.
8)
ruled
W.
l.
statute
ap
does not
ply
purpose
representations
“when the
primary
such
not to
was
delivery
goods
money
induce
extension of credit
or
or
persons concerning
they
whom
made,
are
but to secure the execu
making
a contract
person
tion of
to which the
them
party.”
is a
And
Zeitinger
in
Steinberg
(Mo. App.),
953,
v.
et al.
958,
277 S. W.
l. c.
apply
it is ruled that the statute does not
where the
of the
“owners
corporation
stocks of
make
representations
false
fraudulent
con
cerning the
corporation
assets
financial
condition of such
in
effecting
promoting and
stocks,”
the sale of such
citing Belcher v.
Costello,
189,
122
190;
Mass.
Krum,
Cottrill
397,
v.
100 Mo.
13 S.
753,
Rep. 549;
W.
18 Am. St.
Ruddy
Gunby (Mo.
v.
App.), 180 S.
1043;
W.
Rudd,
McKee v.
222
344,
312,
121 S. W.
133 Am. St.
Rep. 529; Knight Rawlings,
v.
38,
205 Mo.
104
412,
S.
13 L. R. A.
325;
(N. S.) 212, 12 Ann.
pp.
Cas.
27 C. J.,
secs. 79
80.
also, Sedgwick
[See,
Bank,
v.
National
295 Mo.
l. c.
893;
243 S. W.
Culver,
Hess v.
It is present case, that defendants not were the owners purchased stock by plaintiff, and parties agree were not his purchase. ment appears It that the stock got was part held Venner, stock Speilberg part treasury stock. The amount each from appear. O’Meara, source not does representing himself and eodefendant, Chevrolet Motor Company, at the conferences resulting purchasing stock, jus tice, agent should be considered as Speilberg and the Lindell Company making Chevrolet this The record sale. shows that O’Meara, plaintiff’s prior coming picture, into the had frequently conferred with Speilberg about finding some-one who would'put ad money ditional into Lindell Company. Also, ap pears that O’Meara had been active in trying to find some one who company. would invest this O’Meara, And shows, the record fully appreciated company this did not have sufficient working capital. ours numerous above italicized clearly we.’s indicate spoke that O’Meara though conferences he was one of owners of stock of Lindell Company, or was authorized company. On the and for the speak for the of such stock owners value of tending to show point that there no evidence which, upon therefore evidence purchased, when no
stock substantial say damages, it measure is sufficient plain when Company, Lindell Chevrolet evidence that stock evidence, we demurrer purchased, tiff was worthless. The think, properly overruled. 3. Com 1, 2 and challenge plaintiff’s Instructions
Defendants *12 instruction, on the principal plaintiff’s plaint 1, is made on No. which the (1) from there was no substantial evidence grounds that insolvent Company was the Lindell Chevrolet jury could find that investment; were (2) defendants that time made at the purchase stock) the (plaintiff’s parties the contract” not “to 2970, (Sec. E. liable, not under Statute Frauds and would the solvency of representations the as the 1929) S. for O’Meara’s oral merely re Company; (3) Lindell that the instruction material quired alleged representations that “were a finding the the when, it is causing plaintiff investment, make” the factor in con tended, alleged repre required finding* that the it have the should disposed inducing the "We the first and sentations cause. were grounds ruling attack the demurrer to on Instruction 1 defendants, none, by No is and we find evidence. case cited case, holding it in a embody that is essential in an instruction fraud here, language' We like such as contend. do not the one defendants giving plaintiff’s that No. was error Instruction 1. think 378, Dowler, App. 373, Tree Bank Mo. 151 State v. 167 l. c. [Birch S. 784.] bad, 2 plaintiff’s It is is be contended that Instruction No. claimed) the improperly (it defines term “solvent.” In cause it is jury 2 struction No. that “the word ‘solvent’ used in told as instructions, pay in the usual these means that one is able to his debts ordinary County held course business.” It in Boone v. “ Cantley, 911, 58, 330 Mo. 51 W. l. c. (2d) 56, S. that term ‘sol vent,’ applied trader, ability bank, merchant, pay to a means ordinary one’s debts usual course of We hold business.” applicable present definition that the case.
Complaint made plaintiff’s on No. 3 on Instruction support ground punitive damages. that there evidence no In jury they plaintiff, struction No. 3 told the that if found for the amount, alleged any representations, further that if found made, maliciously, is, wrongful were made “that that they were acts, excuse,” done just punitive without cause or intentionally then might damages We that prop be awarded. rule Instruction No. 3 1242, Bayer al., et v. et 331 56 W. 372, er. ux. S. [Finke l. c. cases there cited.] their In offered assign error refusal of Defendants No. 2, 5, 16. refused Instruction structions Defendants’ upon plaintiff burden jury would that have told Lin- that O’Meara and prove by preponderance of evidence ‘‘ com agents into fraudulent Company or its dell entered portion of his investment or there deprive!’ plaintiff some bination jury that made such of, found and that unless the pleadings defendants. the verdict be for Under proof, then would evidence, there was room for defendants’ Instruc no refused 2,No. it refused. properly tion and was requirement Instruction No. 5
Defendants’ refused concerned the alleged upon representations, false plaintiff relied that he diligence reasonable under circumstances. This instruc used In tion covered instructions. other Defendants’s refused 6, among things, No. other would jury struction have told recover, solely not it found that could unless were he relied alleged by O’Meara, false he on the and that representations,made he part could not recover if were “in it found relied whole or in on the re recommendations of his counsel.” has been held “It peatedly that necessary representations is not show that false complained inducing were the sole enough cause, but it is *13 if they were effective cause along* considerations; with that other is, if they a mind, although excited material influence on plaintiff’s they only constituted of several acting together one motives which produced result, the it is sufficient.” v. Na American [Weston tional Assurance (Mo. App.), 791-2, Co. 32 S. W. l. and (2d) 789, c. cases there It was not error to refuse offered defendant’s cited.] Instruction No. 6.
Defendants’ réfused nature, Instruction No. 9 is abstract and would have told the jury “that if are knowledge the means of hand, equally at and parties, subject available to the both matter open inspection of parties alike, both fiduciary there are no relations, and no warranty facts, alleged injured the party of the must show that he has availed himself of of information the means existing at the alleged time the transaction, of before be he will say heard to he been by has deceived alleged representations the party.” of the other In the place, general first the rule is that is not error to refuse abstract instructions. City Suburban [Kansas C., Belt Railroad K. Co. v. St. L. & C. Co., Railroad 118 Mo. 478; 24 S. W. Dierks & Sons Lbr. v. Co. (Mo. App.), Runnalls et al. 54 W. S. And in place, the if the instruction be 447.] concrete, as then it properly considered refused; because there support was no evidence propositions all of the it submits. Defendants’ refused Instruction No. 12 would have told the jury that the fact that Liudell adjudi- Chevrolet Company was stock purchased plaintiff eated a bankrupt “some after six months such of value this no evidence of the corporation, said be would Franklin, 289 v. purchase.” on the Morrow stock date of its of sale deceit
549, 233 W. was an for fraud and S. action conditions of permitted evidence corporate The court stock. trial plaintiff,” sale “some months after' the of stock found ruling the point challenged. In competency of evidence was this happen 230) : evidence S. l. c. “The (233 the court said W. the final purchase, to plaintiff’s of ings May 28, from the date light question upon the corporation decease of the sheds much also, purchase.” [See, real value the stock date at re was not error (Mo.), It v. 180 S. Addis Swofford 548.] 12. No. defendants’ Instruction fuse in- “The court No. 16 reads: Defendants’ refused Instruction you from if and believe the evidence jury that find structs Lindell Chevrolet investment time made his profitable a doing business business Company, said concern was sound, ordinary economical profitable should with which have been be for de- management, must your efficient then verdict refused Instruction fendants.” It defendants’ brief complaint instructions “presented No. converse each side by authorities” plaintiff, offered” that “under all the presented jury, but theory have his the ease to the “entitled to enlighten proposition us counsel fail able for defendants instruction, 16 is we confess our that Instruction No. a converse re- inability appreciate point. properly instruction was fused. plain Lydia Jeck, B. wife of
Defendants contend that Mrs. that, tiff, plaintiff. appears party should have been made a It trial, petition beginning by the second amended his plain at the making party plaintiff, Mrs. close of Jack party. in chief, Mrs. was dismissed Jeck tiff’s case a party plaintiff The contention that Mrs. should Jeck is based ‘‘George on the fact that stock was issued to plaintiff purchased *14 survivor, entirety.” Lydia L. or B. Jeck Jeck the held the To or assignment McDonough, cite support this defendants Peters et al. v. 530, 487, W. (2d) 37 and similar cases. The 327 Mo. S. other Peters point, holds, parties as all cases on that where several do the are case subject matter, the jointly in “all parties interested must be in an However, appears thereon.” as Mrs. here, put action recover Jeck stock, loss, money the sustained no into and therefore no and was necessary party. a not say their brief and argument
All that defendants written evidence, assignment as to admission of is on the the court “the on the rulings its the evidence because issues erred should have
575 been, the Lin- solvency insolvency of confined to the or question of it the situation existed at Company. and as dell made, appears it from time the abstract the investment but per testimony relevancy to the 90 no contro- about cent of befog whatever, merely and versy but was introduced the issues argument, ground inflammatory an and this lay misconduct ’ ’ brought miscarriage justice. about of counsel of appellate court “to record” for duty It is not the an search the upon appellants rulings complained duty of, “but the to state devolves assignments ‘points of error their and their or under authorities’ complained of, designate .specific matters and to where rul such ings al., v. 290 can be found the record.” Gilliland et [Nevins 293, 818, 820; Luyties, 416, Mo. 234 S. W. l. c. Christine v. 55, 60; 217 S. l. c. et al. 307 Mo. W. Hunt, Hunt v. 270 S. c. there The present l. and cases evidence in the cited.] pages, objections ex record covers numerous are ceptions Manifestly, admission evidence. not is our duty assignment to search record in order to rule on this evidence, admission of decline we do so. say there punitive
Defendants support no evidence to damages. damages pres In punitive order recover “there must be circumstances, gross ent in element malice, fraud, some or negligence, damages the measure of such as otherwise is an amount just compensation will constitute a and reasonable loss sus tained, nothing words, wrongs more. In other to which exemplary damages applicable violating are are those which besides right, damages, inflicting import insult, fraud, op actual pression, injuries, and are merely injuries not but inflicted in a spirit disregard rights of wanton J., of others.” sec. C. [17 271, pp. record, ample Under this sup there was evidence to 974-6.] punitive damages. port subject damages, brief, excessive defendants’ is damages. Nothing confined to actual about dam punitive ages being assignment excessive. theOf that the verdict is excessive say grossly defendants verdict “the excessive not based on proof any evidence. No offered relative to the value of the stock time of investment.” This all say that defendants about damages argument. in their excessive brief or written Plaintiff did not ask instruction on measure damages, but asked defendant defining given an instruction damages measure of between the value “the difference actual property (stock) purchased the time 'the value or worth it have would been had true.” representations been The instruction went direct (from find jury .that if was “unable to the evidence) what this been,” then might have would difference verdict be for defend- *15 measure as to the correctly states rule The instruction ants. 233 S. Franklin, 289 v. damages. actual [Morrow evi out, was substantial pointed As heretofore l. c. 231-232.] purchase, made time tending show that dence assignment on merit to the There is no worthless. stock verdict. alleged excessive $15,000, but invested sued will be observed It judgment actual damages, recovered $14,000 actual
only $1000 plaintiff received damages in sum. The record shows as Company the Lindell succeeded Schnure who one from Boulevard, and 3949 Lindell franchise holder against de- damages claim for on his $1000 credited this fendants. Ferguson affirmed; so ordered. judgment should be Hyde, CC., concur. adopted opinion by Bradley, C., is foregoing
PER CURIAM: —The judges theAll concur. opinion of the court. Peregory of E. E. Wm. J. Renner, at the relation State of Missouri Judge Peregory, Relators, L. v. Edmund Alford, and Hattie Pleas, Common and of the Tenth Judicial the Hannibal Court of S. W. Circuit . 122 905. One,
Division December 1938.