Case Name: The State of Missouri ex rel. Addie Rogers, Respondent, v. Gage Bros. & Co., Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1893-01-16
Citations: 52 Mo. App. 464
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Missouri ex rel. Addie Rogers, Respondent, v. Gage Bros. & Co., Appellants.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 464–473

Head Matter:
The State of Missouri ex rel. Addie Rogers, Respondent, v. Gage Bros. & Co., Appellants.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
May 16, 1892,
and January 16, 1893.
ON MOTION TO AFFIRM.
1. Appeals: filing transcript: duty of clerk: statute: order of judge. By amendment to section 2252, Revised Statutes, 1889 (Laws 1891, 69), after an appellant directs the clerk to make out a perfect transcript, he can wait notice from the clerk that the transcript is completed, and until such notice he is not in default, nor does it affect the matter that the court in granting an extension of time to file hill of exceptions added to the order: “But this extension in nowise to extend time for filing transcript."
on merits.
2. Practice, Trial: amendment: continuance: waiver: discretion. An amendment that is merely formal and does not change substantially the cause of action can be made at any stage of the trial, and] does not afford a ground for a continuance, and the discretion of the trial court will not be interfered with unless it has been oppressively exercised; and where the amendment is answered and the trial proceeds the objection is waived.
3. Verdict: jurors: impeachment op: polling op. Considerations of public policy forbid that jurors should be heard to impeach their verdicts by showing their mistakes or misconduct; and their verdict, whether polled or not, cannot, as a general rule, be subsequently impeached by their affidavits.
4. Witnesses: experts: waiver. Where appellants objected to the testimony of certain witnesses because they were not qualified as experts, and other witnesses of like qualifications were called without objection, the objection is deemed to be waived.
5. Evidence: counsel pees in attachment: notes. In an action on an attachment bond the plaintiff may give in evidence the notes she had given for counsel fees in the attachment suit, which, though not conclusive, are admissible along with other evidence.
6. Attachment: damages: counsel pees: instruction. In an action on an attachment bond an instruction which tells the jury that as an element of damages relator was entitled to recover such reasonable sum as the evidence showed she had paid for attorney’s fees, is proper.
7. -: -: -: -. In an action on an attachment bond the measure of damages is the value of the goods at the time of the seizure with interest at the rate of six per cent, to the time of the trial.
8. Practice, Appellate: instruction: harmless error: de minimis. An appellant cannot complain of an error beneficial to him and prejudicial to respondent. The maxim de minimis applied.
9. Instructions: covered in others: harmless error. It is not error to refuse an instruction covering the same ground as others given, and to refuse instructions which might have been given is not reversible, when no harm follows.
10. Verdict: evidence. The verdict in this case is held not to be the result of passion, etc.
11. Attachment: action on bond. Where an appeal from the judgment on the plea in abatement in an attachment suit is dismissed, an action may be instituted on the attachment bond.
Appeal from the Bates Circuit Court. — Hon. James H. Lay, Judge.
Affirmed.
Parkinson & Graves, for appellants.
(1) Upon the amendment of the petition in this cause, a continuance should have been granted the defendants. Petition in abstract of record, pp. 2, 3; affidavit in abstract of record, pp. 5, 6; Lumkinv. Collier, 69 Mo. 170; Parker v. Bliodes, 79 Mo. 88; Scovill v. Glasner, 79 Mo. 449. (2) The verdict in this case is not the verdict actually agreed upon by the jury as is shown by their affidavit in support of the motion for new trial. Balrymple v. Williams, 63 N. Y. 361; Noah v. Dickerson, 15 Johns. 309; Thomas v. Chapman, 45 Barb. 98; Jacksonv. Dickerson, 15 Johns. 317; Johnson v. Davenport, 3 J. J. Marsh. 390; Eixv. Drury, 5 Pick. 296; Taylor v. Greeley, 3 Green, 204; Knight v. Treepovt, 13 Mars. 218; Perkins v. Knight, 2 N. H. 474. (3) The testimony of Mrs. Cora Walton, Mrs. Dr. Christy and the other lady witnesses following them was improperly admitted, and was extremely prejudicial to defendants. (4) The court improperly admitted in evidence the notes given by Addie Rogers to her attorneys for the trial of the plea in abatement. (5) She was not entitled to anything except a reasonable sum for attorney’s fee, it matters not what she had been compelled to pay or contracted to pay. This clause is misleading and susceptible of two constructions and should not have been given. Legg v. Johnson, 23 Mo. App. 590; Cummings v. Burleson, IS 111. 281; Spring v. Collector, 78 111.101. (6) Relator’s instruction number 1, wherein the jury is directed to compute interest from March 12, 1891, up to the date of trial, is erroneous in this particular, and is not founded upon the evidence in the case. Bosse v. Thomas, 7 Mo. App. 590; State v. Hecox, 83 Mo. 531; Baysclon v. Tnmbo, 52 Mo. 35; Givens v. Van Studdiford, 4 Mo. App. 499; White v. Chaney, 20 Mo. App. 389; Wills v. Zallee, 59 Mo. 509.
Francisco Bros., W. L. Jarrott and W. G. Bose, for respondent.
(1) The amendment to the petition was immate.rial, only involving a matter of description not of substance, no new parties being brought in, nor the object of the suit changed. The condition of the bond was copied in the first petition, and a copy of the bond attached, so that defendants could not have been surprised. State v. Sayers, 58. Mo. 585; Bartholow v. Campbell, 56 Mo. 117. (2) By answering the amended petition, defendants waived objections to amendments. Scovill v. Glasner, 79 Mo. 449-454. (3) Three members of the jury, after the jury were discharged, ought not to have been allowed to impeach the verdict by their affidavit. Pratt v. Coffman, 33 Mo. 71; State v. Coupenhaver, 39 Mo. 430; Saivyer v. Bailroad, 37 Mo. 241; McFarland v. Bellows, 49 Mo. 311; State v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40; State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 149; State v. Fox, 79 Mo. 109; Miller v. Bailroad, 5 Mo. App. 471-476. (4) Mrs. Walton, Mrs. Christy and the other ladies whose testimony is complained of fully qualified themselves. (5) To prove the notes actually given for $350, and to show that this was reasonable, was the proper way to prove the attorney fee. No money need actually have been paid. State v. Keevill, 17 Mo. App. 144-147; Ilolthcms v. Hart, 9 Mo. App. 1; Wash v. Lackland, 8 Mo. App. 122; Brownlee v. Fenwick, 103 Mo. 420; State ex rel. v. Shobe, 23 Mo. App. 474. (6) Section 4 of instruction number 1 is very plainly worded, and is so explained in instruction number 7 as not to leave a shadow of doubt. (7) This suit was brought March 12, 1891, and. the bringing of the suit was a sufficient demand to cause interest to begin to run. Berner v. Bagnell, 20 Mo. App. 543. (8) But no demand was necessary. Relator was entitled to interest from the time of the taking under the attachment writ, December 14, 1889, and limiting her to interest from March 12, 1891, was an injury to her, and certainly ought not to be complained of by defendants. Spencer v. Vance, 57 Mo. 427; Folk’s Adm’r v. Allen, 19 Mo. 467; Watson v. Harmon, 85 Mo. 443; State to use v. Smith, 31 Mo. 566. (9) The substance of instruction number 17 was fully embodied in instructions numbers 2, 8 and 10 given by the court.

Opinion:
ON MOTION TO AHSTBM.
Ellison, J.
We are asked to affirm the judgment in this cause. The appeal was taken on November 19, 1891, and time for filing bill of exceptions was extended to February 5, 1892.
Before this time expired another extension to February 15 was granted. The bill was filed within this time, and the cause was, therefore, returnable to the March term of this court. But the clerk of the circuit court, did not get the transcript made out in time to reach this court for the March term; and he did not, of course, notify appellants or appellants' counsel of record of the completion of the transcript. By an amendment to section 2252, Revised Statutes, 1889, "the failure of the clerk to notify appellant or his attorney of record of the completion of the transcript in time to enable him to have same filed in the appel late court iu the time required by law," shall be considered good cause for refusing to affirm the judgment of the lower court. Laws, 1891, p. 69.
Our interpretation of this section, as thus amended, is that, after an appellant directs the clerk to make out a perfect transcript he can await a notice from the clerk that the transcript is completed, and until such notice he is not in default.
II. At the time of the second extension the court added to the order the following words: "But this extension A nowise to extend time for filing transcript in the Kansas City Court of Appeals." We are unable to perceive how this order can alter the duty of the clerk, or affect the party entitled to a performance of such duty, and to rely upon its performance. The motion to affirm is overruled.
All concur.