*1 1150 (Mo. (2d) 596; 32 Nagle Sup.), v. S. W. State v.
stand. [State (2d) 79; (Mo. 854, 324 25 S. W. State v. Matticker McMurphy, Mo. (2d) 647; Buckley, 309 274 38, 22 W. Mo. S. W. Sup.), S. State v. v. 74; Morney, supra.] State may able, trial, produce additional The State be at another proof guilt; not, prosecution of the defendant’s if this must fail for proof. the want of judgment All is and the remanded. concur. reversed cause
George Wolfersberger George Miller, Hansen, W. G. M. S. v. Realty Realty Gregg Company, McCanless-Miller Guy McCanless, Appellants. D. H. William (2d) S. W. 758. Two, 5, June 1931.*
Division Term, 25, 1931; 1930, Opinion motion for March filed at October * NOTE: 1931; modify April 14, rehearing overruled oninion and motion April Term', at en Banc overruled to transfer Court motion June 1931. *2 appellant Bosenlerger, & Freet McVey White and & BwMs Hansen. *3 appel- Houts for other Hale Conrad, E. Durham and L.
Henry S. lants. *4 respondents. Allen W. E. Beery N. Prince, James
W.C. *6 1156 damages action for for fraud. Twelve
DAYIS, law is a C.-—This defendants, plaintiff parties originally but dismissed were made remaining six was as to the defendants six The cause as to of them. finding verdict the issues jury, and returned a submitted to the assessing damages $32,561.97. On his at plaintiff favor of judgment appealed. verdict, on said defendants entered that, finding prior 1920, plain- facts warrant
The adduced Disposing operated tiff in Illinois. of his Illinois owned and a farm 1922, Benito, farm, purchased in and near San Texas. In he land conditions, depression locality. existed in that At a financial due to First, properties. that he owned three Texas a home erected time Second, eighty-acre $14,000, an at a cost of free of incumbrance. expense at paid farm for he an acre and cleared an $150 which acre, costing $21.50 an on which had erected two houses he $6,000 Third, subject mortgage. respectively, $2900 $3300 to a acre, subject acres, unimproved, costing $175 tract an to a a mortgage. rights $6600 two Irrigation appurtenant were to the aggregated farms, investments with water on three sides. These three $58.420, addition, mortgages $12,600, subject to and'were discussing $1,000. While probably interest of not over taxes and depression neighbor the name by with a conditions dispose of his that he desired to Texas ’-«laintiffconcluded agree properties, among other climate did not seem reasons that the by 4, plaintiff was advised Youker July 1922, with About his wife. desiring plaintiff going City, to know whether he Kansas in- trading properties for flats. Plaintiff his Texas would consider farm, replied and Youker formed him that he desired a northern easier, flats later could be traded and that the trade for flats would be real estate defendant Hansen as a for a farm. Youker mentioned dealer. plaintiff July 1922, Youker, City, wired at
On at Kansas twenty-four up apartment a deal on a San Benito that he had worked immediately for Kansas Plaintiff left building and to come at once. Hansen, City morning, met, Youker and and on his arrival on a certain as inquiry On Youker Hansen’s office. and was taken them to him, lands, where- on his the incumbrances advised twenty-four apartment upon the trade for the declared that Youker mortgage $6,000 on the building consummated, due to the could not be On slipped memory. his tract, said had which Youker eighty-acre desired trade. inquiry, ascertained further Youker Company was called. Thereupon Gregg Realty Realty Gregg Company to state it is well point At tbis to the sale acting relative in' engaged corporation awas Realty Company also McCanless-Miller real estate. *7 times and, at all building. It constructed in engaged corporation, the buildings in situated apartment the two mentioned, owned herein his later traded plaintiff which Street for on East 27th 2700 block Mc- of the the sales Gregg Company was The properties. Texas employ in the Snyder was a salesman Defendant Canless’Company. and was a stockholder Defendant McCanless Company. Gregg of the in the a salesman Miller was companies. Defendant officer of both understanding Mc- with Company, and an Gregg had employ of the also stockholder a Miller was in its stock. interest as to an Canless companies and two Company. The the McCanless and an officer of in of rooms suite the occupied same Snyder, McCanless Miller and said com-' books of kept the employee building. same an office panies. plain- led and purported that Hansen to show tends The evidence exchange to respect the agent with plaintiff’s he tiff that was to believe by McCanless buildings owned apartment for the of the Texas land Gregg Com- obtaining, the office "With this relation Company. Upon office. to Snyder went resulting Hansen’s that called, pany was prop- several Snyder mentioned trade, to inquiry as to what he had was Plaintiff cursorily examine. they view and went to erties, which and the apartment through an Youker Snyder, and taken by Hansen Hansen’s to return and, his on property, 27th Street of the basement property this liked that he Youker office, informed and office Company’s Gregg and Hansen’s Subsequently, in both best. Youker, Hansen and presence In the a trade discussed. was George K. that plaintiff Snyder to declared negotiations, during $12,000 a carried apartment each that apartments, owned the Adams be they could least that and mortgage, second first a $9500 and present, then was Miller Defendant $79,000 cash. acquired for .was away six stepped then Miller Snyder. by having been introduced conversed, but and him Snyder went to eight feet Miller were Snyder and Hansen, while what was said. not hear did conversing, making a deal on hesitate you “Why do plaintiff, said declaring conference, Snyder returned like this?” month, a $70 at lease year’s a building were under apartments $4,000 a interest carry expenses, would the income and that net a leave mortgages of the year principal on payment a declared further Snyder building. year on each a $1750 balance agreed had Adams agent, Adams’s Company was Gregg that the go to he desired because $79,000, exchange for cash or to sell for buildings property, Texas and wanted climate warmer declared them. Hansen construct $79,000 than cost alone more
Ü58 experienced an agent, he was real estate that he no interest had a trade of commission, other than a and that he
knew $100,000. were worth Plaintiff a circular to was shown gross the effect that the income $10,280, prop- told that he was erty earning that $100,000. amount was worth
Snyder prepared exchange contract relative to the properties Texas Company’s apart- the McCanless 27th Street contract, exchange ments. The however, properties for the of said by executed and between Adams, who was a straw person. signature The evidence tends to show that Adams’s on signed forged, contract was but he declared that he deeds properties plaintiff conveyed after them to him. Plaintiff did not know that person, Adams was a straw con- such fact was cealed defendants. upon Plaintiff declared that he relied representations Snyder, made Hansen and and believed such representations to be true.
On behalf owner, *8 Company, presented the McCanless to proposition exchange Miller the of apartments plain- the of for tiff’s properties, exchange Texas and Miller him an advised Snyder would not be considered. to Hansen the communicated suggest- the owner was exchange, not interested in an and fact.that ed that the owner would sell apartments (Hansen) to him at a reasonable price, (Hansen) cash and that he then could effect an ex- change with orally the plaintiff, agreed and it was between Hansen and might option thirty days Hansen have an to purchase apartments cash, subject mortgages $6500 for to for $43,000. proposition agreed This was communicated to Miller and he it, understanding to purchaser. Hansen was the He denied that he agent. knew agree- that Hansen was It was after this Snyder negotiated ment that Hansen and procured and the execu- tion of the contract plaintiff Adams, reputed between owner. Pursuant to option September Hansen, the oral agreement, 1922, on in the party by name another Harmon, straw the name of entered into a written contract with Company the McCanless for purchase equity apartments in the for the cash $5750. consideration of The consideration was paid later Hansen to the McCanless Com- pany.
At the time of plaintiff the execution of the contract between Adams, mortgages, aggregating first $24,000, against were of record apartments. On 2, 1922, October Company the McCanless conveyed apartments party, Gille, placed to a a Miss on straw who each apartment plot mortgages ground $9500 two second A executing each. short contract, plaintiff time after forwarded City properties to Hansen in his conveying Kansas deeds Texas Adams, grantee. At the Hansen, instance of Adams deeded these for Hansen’s Davis, party, one M. H. a straw properties to Texas clearing prop- on the Texas Following of liens interest. beneficial bolding the title party, Gille, the straw matters, Miss erty and other conveyed apart- the McCanless to the contract closing the sale both plaintiff, thus properties direct ment and the Hansen, Company and McCanless between the however, between executed, plaintiff, Hansen and contract between by Miss executed the deeds placed one Some plaintiff. Adams and The had them. plaintiff never record, and plaintiff on Gille by Adams deeded exchange, were properties, Texas after theAt party. a straw Davis, by Miss benefit for Hansen’s and held properties all the disposed trial Hansen had of the time taking Plaintiff, after forty except acres. conveyed by plaintiff charges, expenses to meet unable apartments, was charge finally lost them. .he apartment that said Company show of the McCanless The books testified Miller- them. construct $22,000 each to buildings cost about in the was the Hansen advised that was not that he whom party was the Hansen although he knew that transaction, Snyder’s acquiesced that he He contract. said gave option he him that Snyder advised when party aas straw suggestion of Adams _j one. desired opinion. in the will be adverted Other facts instructions offer refused to develops I. The record refused. court damages, which punitive on except predicated one jury gave to however, prepared court, The instruc- principal court’s instructions. certain by plain- recovery theory for C-l, tion, announced *9 it.of complain tiff, defendants and theory the upon proceeding analyze instruction the Defendants we which Hansen, to by earned accounting profits the of an court the Hansen, except defendants, of instance At agree. the of issue an to establish failed evidence the jury that the charged that consideration the Consequently, representations. fraudulent pages three covers C-l Instruction jury. was denied issue de- all recovery against Summarized, directed it the record. that agent, and plaintiff’s was found that jury if the fendants properties, exchange of negotiated Snyder and Hansen, Youker all apartments, owner was the Adams represented that and therein, interest no had Adams that believed, and plaintiff of which Gregg that Company, McCanless real owner was but the McCanless agents of Snyder sales were the Company and exchange, unwilling make to Company was McCanless and that the be- agreed was it that fact, that Hansen of Snyder informed 1160 Snyder
tween
and Hansen
would be
sold Han-
sen, and that Miller
sowas
advised,
ignorant
but
there-
of, and that plaintiff conveyed his
properties
Texas
to Adams and
Adams Davis for Hansen,
that,
ignorant
his
properties
conveyed
were so
and that Hansen
informed
represented
he
plaintiff in the matter
of properties,
and that the
properties
Texas
greater
were of
market value than the
apartments,
incumbrances considered, and
jury
were
authorized to
plaintiff’s
assess
damages
any
amounts that
market value of the
properties
exceeded that of
apart-
ments, and
jury may
that the
allow interest.
The theory
petition was an action at
damages
law for
for fraud and deceit. Plaintiff and all defendants so
it, as
construe
shown by their briefs.
Instruction C-l predicates a recovery on the
theory of an accounting or money had and received relative to the
profits
fraudulent
of Hansen. Consequently, it is not predicated on
the averments of the' petition, which alleged;
part
on the
of defendants,
a conspiracy and a participation in a fraudulent
deprive
scheme
plaintiff of
properties
his
by representations,
by
know
be
false
defendants, with
present
intention that
should be believed
and acted
on
plaintiff, of
falsity
which
plaintiff was ignorant, and
on which representations he relied and
his damage.
acted
[Judd
v. Walker,
It appears to general be the doctrine, in fact we have discovered
no case to the contrary, relationship existing that the between a real estate broker and the vendor real estate is agency that of principles and that governing their respective rights regulated liabilities are rules of law applicable to principal agent. Walker, 215 v. [Judd Mo. 114 S. 979;W. 247; R. C. per 1087; L. R. C. supp. L. 9 C. J. 525.] According to the evidence, Realty Company MeCanless-Miller owned the 27th Street apartments. Defendant Miller was vice- its president and its active presentation relative of offers *10 for sale or trade of said apartments, refused, upon presenta-. for he tioii of an offer, to trading consider them for Texas land. The rela- tionship existing plaintiff during between period and Hansen this was Snyder agent. communicated to Hansen principal and then that of Miller, the McCanless to con- representing the refusal of (Han- suggested Hansen that he immediately to trade, sider the and sen) (subject mortgages cash to apartments $6500 for purchase the plaintiff for his Texas lands. That $43,000), for trade them to and agent, ex- Snyder plaintiff’s relative to the knew that Hansen was change lands, amply evidence, for of his was shown Texas Snyder exchange and prepared prepared later contract or had to a com- inserted Hansen’s name therein as entitled So, Snyder, mission. when without information to on the subject, thirty-day gave option purchase apartments Hansen a to agree upon an opportunity $6500 for cash to him an to afford plaintiff, part on their to commit a properties conspiracy of with a to the plaintiff’s injury fraud came into existence. Pursuant to Snyder and tends to show that defraud, the evidence conspiracy Hansen, other, representations presence of made certain each petition, as plaintiff, conformity with averments of the follows:
Snyder subject a first and represented apartment that each $9500, respectively; that $12,000 of and second deed of trust $79,000 cash; that they acquired for was least could be them; in- buildings $79,000 construct that the cost more than alone interest, permit payment carry would a expenses and come would $4,000 trust, a would leave year and a on the deeds building; Adams was year $1750 balance of a on each net wanted owner, go to a warmer climate he desired to because $79,000. exchange for agreed property, had for cash or he to sell agent, experienced real estate represented that was an Hansen he than apartments other no in a trade of that he had interest $100,000. they worth commission, knew were that he buildings more than cost Verily, representations cash; $79,000 acquired for $79,000; they could be that the least other in' a trade had no interest and that Hansen facts, and, as material representations than they commission were fraudulent were evidence, false, according to the were to-wit, fraud, actionable, elements the other essential Both deception damage, present. injury were scienter, or acquired for much be apartments, could and Hansen knew that $79,000 representations time they knew, at the cash, than less made, agreed it to to sell had were the owner ought knew, $49,500 cash, or also equivalent. They' or its knowledge, for the known, actual tantamount which is have easy access, in the office books account were construction $79,000 to construct. buildings greatly [Weed than less that the cost (2d) W. 137, l. 14 S. c. Foundry Co., 322 Mo. & Car 652.] Am. v. *11 apart- of in the trade the They Hansen bad an interest also knew that to-wit, prospective a commission, that of owner. other than ments a knowledge, and have false, to their we representations were These plaintiff. not injured ¥e need they deceived and but that no doubt in representations were actionable that the remainder determine surrounding as they were admissible themselves, but it is evident that gestae. part rep- res The circumstances, and as a the facts and of of fraud with the other elements detailed, in connection resentations Snyder, against Hansen and evidence, a submissible case in made Snyder the petition. As em- support the averments of the Realty agent Gregg Company relative the sale ployee and of the acting scope employ- in the of his apartments, and was then of the Snyder were of ment, representations of the acts it the is evident that nn (cid:127)aid in participant conspiracy the company, resulting that it became plaintiff. to defraud Realty Company and Miller
III. The main- McCanless-Miller participants that, existed, they tain if were not conspiracy fraud and therein. relating participation in fraud to their the The evidence testimony of tends to show the defendant conspiracy Realty Gregg Com- for the Snyder, acting as salesman Miller that Com- vice-president of the McCanless Miller, as pany, presented Benito, and house in San plaintiff’s farm land photographs of pany, properties. trading for these Texas asking consider him if he would plain- Subsequently, prior but not. he would Miller advised that Adams, exchange executing contract with the agreeing to and tiff Gregg Realty Company, acting Snyder, as salesman Realty Company, owner McCanless-Miller selling of Miller, vice-president of apartments, approached its office that Hansen for himself him and advised the McCanless cash, subject to $6500 apartments of the purchase proposed which thirty-day option, to all of $43,000, upon a verbal mortgages for plain- Hansen was knew that agreed. Miller denied that he Miller Snyder Hansen did not desire agent. advised Miller that then tiff’s (Miller) him he had contract, that exchange and informed sign that Adams, replying Miller Adams suggested the name to Hansen sign titles. papers and hold them to had been used Miller, Snyder, substance, that of testimony corroborated occasion, Miller that, he stated that on an but further testifiéd Adams, exchange plaintiff but contract between dictated the legal mortgages numbers Miller dictated the terms of the information gave that Miller buildings, and that he meant information stenographer him or Hansen furnished and lands, to the Texas testimony was, hand, on The substance of the the other exchange that, at time of the between of the execution Adams, he was the owner of presumed Adams shortly subsequent to ex- transaction; that it was a bona-fide piration thirty days contract, al- from date *12 inspection properties, lowed for the of the Texas went to see Hansen Snyder, Colorado, on his from informed Hansen that he return who money. deal, Thereupon could not handle as he not have the the did Snyder (Snyder) suggested deal, could that Hansen handle the as he Snyder buildings not cheap; obtain for him He did ask whether the through Snyder making replied he was deal Adams. that he the would Miller and it then that Hansen first obtained the in- see was Realty Company actual formation that the McCanless-Miller was the plaintiff, apartments. owner the Without information to of contract, September 9, 1922, with Mc- entered into sales dated the Realty apartments Company purchase Canless-Miller to from it the for subject Thereafter, cash, mortgages $43,000. adopting $5750 to exchange the plaintiff Adams, contract between and Hansen had conveyed apartments plaintiff at the instance of the McCanless through Company, acquired persons title beneficial and straw and plaintiff’s lands. interest to Texas defendants, any ex-
The record no evidence that of contains profit by cept Hansen, any in or direct reason were interested received actuating acquisition lands. The plaintiff’s Hansen’s Texas Company apart- was the of the Miller and the McCanless sale lure to mortgages aggregating $24,750, ments for over and above the first $24,000, by comprised $19,000, cash secured $5750 and notes mortgages. Company second While the books of the McCanless tended buildings aggregated $44,000, show that the construction cost yet to show the part substantial evidence on the tended $36,- $35,000 market value or $27,000, construction cost was and their 000. show these defendants It follows that the evidence tends to by conspiracy fraud, not- profit purported were to reason of the they in the actual withstanding participate did not had no interest and profits of the Texas lands.
Notwithstanding
contrary,
suf-
Miller testified
we think that
ficient facts and circumstances were
evidence
authorize
Company,
Miller,
vice-president
inference that
as
of the McCanless
by
prior
exchange
plain-
to the execution of the
contract
Adams
tiff,
plaintiff’s agent
disposition
relative to the
knew that Hansen was
justified by the facts that
lands. Such
was
inference
sign
exchange contract
Miller knew that Hansen did not want to
thereto,
party
Adams,
person, appear
a straw
as a
but desired that
place
apartments
plaintiff,
as
vendor of
and stead
testimony
justified
Snyder’s
Miller
Hansen.
It was further
exchange
dictated the
By
contract.
facts,
reason of these
Miller and
Company,
McCanless
for which
acting,
he
actuated
a desire
to sell the apartments,
Snyder
understanding
came to an
with
Hansen, and
concealed from
that Hansen was in fact the
owner of the
party
trade,
to the
which Miller
knew,-
ought
or
known,
have
was a breach of trust on Hansen’s
part,
resulting that Miller and
Company
the McCanless
were
participants in conspiracy
fraud, thereby
becoming responsible
for such fraudulent
statements as
or Hansen made.
Moreover,
think
we
testimony tends to
Hansen’s
show
conspiracy and
part
fraud on the
of Miller and the McCanless Com-
pany.
It is evident that Adams
party
was a straw
transaction,
in the
may
and it
be inferred from
testimony
Hansen’s
that the McCanless
Company,
exchange
relative to
contract,
originally
the real
party in interest therein.
If it
was, Hansen’s name appeared in!
contract as
agent as to
lands,
the Texas
fact was known to both Miller and
McCanless
charged
were
with such knowledge, for
handling
Miller was
*13
So,
transaction.
when subsequently the
Company
McCanless
re-
pudiated
the deal with
procured
through Snyder
Hansen
over, they
to take it
participated in a breach of trust and a conspiracy,
rendering them liable for any fraudulent
statement made
Hansen
Snyder.
or
Furthermore,
if the
Company
McCanless
was the
party
real
in
interest to the
contract, Snyder
agent
was its
or authorized
sub-agent
knowledge
to its
relative to the
apartments.
sale
We
representations
think the
by Snyder
made
were within the course
scope
employment,
his
resulting that the
McCanless
principal,
his
responsible
was
858;
therefor.
616,
C. J.
9
672;
C. J.
[2
Walker,
v.
215
Judd
Mo.
114 W.
312.
S.
City
As was said in
979.]
Nat.
v. Hun,
160,
Bank
163,
51
l.
quoting
Fed.
c.
from Barwick v.
Bank, L. R. 2 Exch. 259, 12
298,
E. R. C.
“The master is answerable
every
(fraudulent)
such
wrong of
his servant or
as is com
in
mitted
the course of his service
benefit,
and for the
though
master’s
express
no
privity
command or
of the
proved.”
master be
[Con
necticut
Carson,
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v.
186
221,
Mo. App.
172 S. W.
As it was
agent’s
within the
employment
69.]
course
to rep
resent the
land,
number
in
of acres
a tract of
so as to render the
principal
(Judd Walker,
liable
v.
215 Mo.
979),
S. W.
so
Snyder’s
was it within the course of
employment,
theory,
under this
represent
that the construction
$79,000,
cost
was
they
and that
the least
purchased
$79,000
could be
for was
cash.
situation,
In
this
their
concealment,
acts and
plaintiff)
led
to believe that Adams was the real owner so as
induce him
representations
be
believe to
true
as to
construction cost purchase
tbe
price. The defendants, except MeCanless personally,
according to the evidence,
cognizant
were
of trust,
breach
thus ratifying
representations
of Snyder
bringing
into ex-
istence a conspiracy to
though
defraud as
it had
planned
been
prior
to the execution of the exchange
A
contract.
corporation may be
liable
conspiracy (12
610).
C. J.
gist
While the
a civil ac-
tion for both conspiracy and fraud is damage, it is not necessary, we
think,
any
particular conspirator
profited
should have
thereby,
but that damage resulted to
plaintiff.
v. Bresse, 33
[State
S. W.
(2d) 919; 12 C. J.
As to Miller and
581.]
the McCanless-Miller
Realty Company, plaintiff made a submissible case.
IV. Defendant MeCanless avers that
probative
force
evidence is insufficient to show that he participated in the conspiracy
and fraud. Although surmises
conjectures
arise from the evi
dence, we think his
is
conclusion
correct. Neither con
jecture nor
may
surmise
be made the basis of an action
for conspiracy and fraud.
It
is true that
apart
ments were
under
erected
his direction, that he was a stockholder
and president of the MeCanless Company, and a stockholder and
president of the Gregg Company; that the sale of the apartments to
Hansen was
him,
submitted to
practically
was
every sale, and that
no one
right
had
to dispose of
properties
consulting
without
Miller and himself; but none of
to show that MeCanless knew or
matters,
these
in
opinion,
our
tended
charged
with knowledge that
agent, or
he (MeCanless)
was a participant
conspiracy
and fraud. His
in giving
act
consent to the sale
to Hansen
signing the deeds to the property was the act of the
corporation, not
personal
his
act. Nor do we think that MeCanless
may
personally
charged
be
of conspiracy
notice
with
merely
or fraud
*14
president
because he was
corporation.
of the
To hold an officer of a
corporation for
done,
acts
must
it
be shown
probative
evidence of
force that he had actual or
knowledge
constructive
of
actionable
the
wrong and participated therein.
Hutton,
1166 representations it tbe value or worth would have had had the been 458; 672, 302 259 White, Mo. S. W.
true. v. [Busse 949; 252 Kend- 299 Mo. Simpson Burnett, 232, v. S. W. 150, rick 225 123 S. W. Ryus, v. Mo. 937.] charged C-l, jury: court “The its Instruction VI.In ) per jury, they desire, (6% interest at of six may, if so allow the rate August any, amount, if found in favor of the from cent on the can be as fraud, action where demand 5, 1922.” In an interest, by computation from which when the time certained jury may be allowed, ascertained, if must run can be they may interest. v. instructed that allow [Arthur Mfg. 335; 12 27 J. In this Co., App. Wilson Mo. C. & 88.] Wheeler being of unliquidated incapable ascertained demand was case the logical ques A of by computation. and well considered discussion Laughlin 126 E. may Hopkinson, Ill. N. be found v. tion instructing substantially point. erred in 591, a case court The jury to allow' interest. court complain
VII.All of the refusal of the defendants give jury As them. some thirteen instructions offered fraud, theory the case was submitted on a other than unnecessary analyze It we think it or them. discuss given may retrial, be that on a but some of instructions should be matters we leave to the trial court. those testimony complain VIII.Defendants of admission of certain plaintiff. his to the of offered entitled bv benefit value of bargain, is, the difference between the actual apartments purchased at that time and the value Con- representations been true. would have had had the sequently, ir- of lands the value an in the case. Evidence relevant and immaterial not issue rejected. White, S. W. thereof should have been v. [Busse 1046.] IX.We are to see that the admission the articles unable defendants, delinquent corporation or association of the relating Miller, evidence or personal tax statements justified. Where a any defendant was wealth wealth, jointly, their are sued of defendants number purpose collectively, be shown for the individually cannot or either punished cannot be because damages, for one defendant punitive *15 644, 129 App. Ostmann, Mo. v. another. wealth of [Schafer Lansden, 172 U. l. Light S. c. Washington Co. v. Gas 63; W. S. (Mo. App.) McDowell, S. W. v. Stansberry 757.] 553; 1167: admitting court erred complain that the X. Defendants further constructed, as well testimony buildings well were not photographs, thereof, cost construction as Tarioi;is building- City Kansas provisions of the buildings. This evidence was testimony as to the life of the code value actual market competent, material as to the relevant and exchange contract, buildings at the time of the execution kind by the least, was value, their market extent at evaluated to some construction. and condition of their complaints relative unnecessary
XI. It is to discuss defendants’ and the excessive- argument of counsel again questions may not verdict, as the same ness arise. Cooley and and the cause remanded. judgment reversed is concur. CC.,
Westimes, adopted C., is foregoing opinion Davis, PER CURIAM: —The judges concur. All of opinion of the court. as the Poultry Supply Com Appellant, v. Ozark T. Fullington, Marion pany. (2d) 39 S. W. 780. One, 5, 1931. June Division