The fact that the shipper paid part of the money to an expert, who acted for it before the Commission in procuring the reparation, recovery of which is barred by limitations, and has used the remainder for its own purposes, furnishes no equitable defense to the suit for refund. P. 485. 2. Equitable considerations can not justify failure of a carrier to collect, or of a shipper to pay, the tariff charges required by the Interstate Commerce Act. P. 485. 343 Mo. 915; 122 S.W.2d 890, reversed. CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 625, to review a judgment of the court below, which affirmed a judgment of a circuit court of Missouri for the defendant, in an action brought by the trustees of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company to recover an amount of money which the company had paid to the defendant in pursuance of an order of reparation made by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
o. v. Commerce Trust Co., 332 Mo. 98, 56 S.W.2d 1034; Toroian v. Parkview Amusement Co., 331 Mo. 700, 56 S.W.2d 134; Kincaid v. Birt, 29 S.W.2d 97. (3) While an appellate court may direct that restitution be made to the party who has, ultimately, prevailed, the effect of a general and unqualified reversal of a judgment, order or decree, is to nullify it completely, and leave the case standing as if such judgment, order or decree had never been rendered; and, where it renders or directs a final judgment, the action is finally terminated, and, in such a situation, the merits of the case are finally determined, and the law involved finally adjudicated; but, in any event, it will leave the enforcement of the order of restitution to the trial court. 5 C.J.S., p. 1474, secs. 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, p. 1494, secs. 1963, 1964, 1965, p. 1529, sec. 1973, p. 1543, sec. 1980; 3 Am. Jur. p. 741, 1243; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 327 Mo. 115, 34 S.W.2d 85; Teasdale v. Stoller, 133 Mo. 645, 34 S.W. 873; Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W.2d 890. [691] ASCHEMEYER, C.
(1) The imposition of the special tax assessments did not constitute duress. Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412; Franke v. St. Louis, 249 S.W. 379; State ex rel. American Mfg. Co. v. Reynolds, 270 Mo. 589, 194 S.W. 878; Wolfe v. Marshall, 52 Mo. 167; Robbins v. Latham, 134 Mo. 466, 36 S.W. 33; Pritchard v. People's Bank of Holcomb, 200 S.W. 665; Wood v. Kansas City Home Tel. Co., 223 Mo. 537, 123 S.W. 6; Allison v. Tucker, 170 S.W.2d 963; Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W.2d 890; Charter of Kansas City, Secs. 290, 298, 300; Powell v. Joplin, 335 Mo. 562, 73 S.W.2d 408; Interstate Department Stores, Inc., v. Henry, State Treasurer, 272 N.W. 451; Southern Service Co. v. Los Angeles, 97 F.2d 963; Darby v. City of Vidalia, 149 S.E. 23; Newcomb v. Davenport, 89 Iowa 291, 53 N.W. 232; Detroit v. Martin, 34 Mich. 170; Brunson v. Board of Directors of Crawford County Levee Dist., 124 Ark. 424, 153 S.W. 828; Union Pacific v. Dodge County, 98 U.S. 541; Louisville v. Becker, 139 Ky. 17, 129 S.W. 311. (2) The court erroneously excluded material and relevant testimony offered by defendant as to notice to property owners of the invalidity of the contract. Charter of Kansas City, Secs. 243, 245, 248, 251; Rich Hill v. Donnan, 82 Mo. App. 386; Westport v. Mastin, 62 Mo. App. 647; Sedalia v. Donahue, 190 Mo. 407, 89 S.W. 386; Williams v. Hybskmann, 311 Mo. 332, 278 S.W. 377; Weesner v. Central Natl. Bank, 106 Mo. App. 668, 80 S.W. 319. (3) The plaintiff has failed to prove t
(2) The amended petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Childs v. Bank, 17 Mo. 213; Mooney v. Kennett, 19 Mo. 551; Boyce v. Christy, 47 Mo. 70; McHoney v. Ins. Co., 44 Mo. App. 426; Flowers v. Smith, 214 Mo. 98, 112 S.W. 499; Koch v. State Highway Comm., 47 S.W.2d 138; Peyton v. Rose, 41 Mo. 257; Allison v. Mo. P. L. Co., 59 S.W.2d 771; Steinberg v. Bank, 324 Mo. 297, 67 S.W.2d 63; Doerner v. St. L. Crematory, 80 S.W.2d 721; Mallinckrodt v. Nemnich, 169 Mo. 388, 69 S.W. 355; Pier v. Heinrichoffen, 52 Mo. 333; Walrath v. Crary, 222 S.W. 895; Ederlin v. Judge, 36 Mo. 350; King v. City of Rolla, 130 S.W.2d 697; Ludwig v. Scott, 334 Mo. 207, 65 S.W.2d 1034; Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 370; Baldwin v. Scott County Mill. Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W.2d 890; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412; Silverforb v. Bk., of Nashua, 233 Mo. App. 1239, 128 S.W.2d 1070; Kramer v. K.C.P. L. Co., 311 Mo. 383, 279 S.W. 43; Natl. En. Stamp. Co. v. St. Louis, 328 Mo. 648, 40 S.W.2d 593; Darrow v. Briggs, 261 Mo. 244, 169 S.W. 118; Rositzky v. Rositzky, 329 Mo. 662, 46 S.W.2d 591; Ruggles v. Washington County, 3 Mo. 496; Chalnda v. St. L. Transit Co., 213 Mo. 244, 112 S.W. 249; State ex rel. v. Burney, 269 Mo. 602, 191 S.W. 981; Seegers v. Marx-Haas Co., 334 Mo. 632, 66 S.W.2d 526; Dano v. Sharpe, 152 S.W.2d 693; Niederberg v. Golluber, 162 S.W.2d 592; Fritschle v. Kettle River Co., 139 S.W.2d 948; Diener v. Star Pub. Co., 230 Mo. 613, 132 S.W. 1143; State ex rel. v. Sevier, 92 S.W.2d 102; Massey-Harris Har. Co. v. Fed. Res. Bk., 48 S.W.2d 158; Norris v. Letchworth, 152 Mo. 421; Remmers v. Remmers, 217 Mo. 541, 117 S.W. 1117; Cleveland v. Laclede Prod. Co., 129 S.W.2d 12; Riggs v. City, 126 S.W.2d 1144; 21 C.J. 186, secs. 169-70; 22 C.J., pp. 130, 135, se
These actions are barred by that statute. Plaintiffs cite Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W.2d 890, and Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 307 U.S. 478, 59 S.Ct. 943, 83 L.Ed. 1409, in support of their argument that the present actions are not within the statute. That case originated in the State Court in Missouri.
Baker v. Keet Rountree Dry Goods Co., 2 S.W.2d 733, 318 Mo. 969; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Goldsmith, 192 S.W.2d 1, 239 Mo. App. 188. (3) The court did not err in introducing the deposition of Louis H. Burns. Heinbach v. Heinbach, 170 S.W. 1143, 262 Mo. 69; Bernblum v. Travelers Ins. Co., 105 S.W.2d 941, 340 Mo. 1217. (4) Appellant would not be entitled to repayment of premiums voluntarily paid by the executor after William Boyle's death. Ferguson v. Butler County, 247 S.W. 795, 297 Mo. 20; Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 122 S.W.2d 890, 343 Mo. 915. Henry I. Eager for defendant Occidental Life Insurance Company of California; Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager, Swanson Midgley of counsel.
It paid over funds to Jennings Lumber for an alleged debt of Wallick and, in breach of its contract with Wallick, charged that payment against Wallick's account. "Except where otherwise provided by statute, it is a well settled general rule that a person cannot, either by way of set-off or counterclaim, or by direct action, recover back money which he has voluntarily paid with full knowledge of all the facts, and without any fraud, duress, or extortion, although no obligation to make such payment existed." 70 C.J.S. Payment § 133. Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W.2d 890 (1938), rev'd on other grounds 307 U.S. 478, 59 S.Ct. 943, 83 L.Ed. 1409; R. S. Jacobs Banking Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 34 S.W.2d 173[3-5] (Mo.App. 1930). And, see Restatement of the Law, Restitution, Chapter 1, Sec. 2. While the bank characterizes its defense as mitigation of damages, it is more properly a set-off.
" With specific reference to the law of insurance, it is considered by standard authority that payment by the insurer, with knowledge of facts to support a policy defense, amounts to a waiver of its right to rely thereupon or to recover the payment made. 16A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 9366, p. 826. Staples v. O'Reilly, Mo.App., 288 S.W.2d 670; National Enameling Stamping Co. v. City of St. Louis, 328 Mo. 648, 40 S.W.2d 593; Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W.2d 890, 895(6), reversed on another ground 307 U.S. 478, 59 S.Ct. 943, 83 L.Ed. 1409, rehearing denied 308 U.S. 631, 60 S.Ct. 65, 84 L.Ed. 526; Ferguson v. Butler County, 297 Mo. 20, 247 S.W. 795, 796(2), 26 A.L.R. 1519; American Brewing Co. v. City of St. Louis, 187 Mo. 367, 86 S.W. 129, 131; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412, 415; R. S. Jacobs Banking Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank, Mo.App., 34 S.W.2d 173, 183(3); Columbia Building Loan Ass'n v. Gill, Mo.App., 285 S.W. 181, 182 (4); Pritchard v. People's Bank of Holcomb, 198 Mo.App. 597, 200 S.W. 665, 666(1). Plaintiff has not undertaken to dispute or contravene the principles of law herein-above noted, either by cited case, text authority or argument.
'" A ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri in Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W.2d 890, that equitable considerations might affect the duty of the railroad to collect the tariff freight rates in an interstate shipment was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 307 U.S. 478, 59 S.Ct. 943, 83 L.Ed. 1409. Whether Berg should prevail as against the petition of the Wabash on the theory of a legal defense, equitable estoppel or by counterclaim, the net result would be to discharge his liability to pay and to relieve the Wabash from collecting the balance due on the lawful freight rate, and to do so by the joint failure on his part, and on the part of the railroad assisting him, to comply with its terms, which, as we have pointed out, is not permissible under the Interstate Commerce Act.
Passing any question of pleading resulting from failure to charge either fraud or mistake in the counterclaim, the validity of defendants' argument depends, in the final analysis, upon acceptance of defendants' evidence that O'Reilly, intending to pay the Godfrey note, did not enter Jarvis' place of business but waited outside, and that O'Reilly accepted the note (marked "paid" by George upon his return) in the mistaken belief, induced by George's misrepresentation, that it was the Godfrey note when it actually was the $2,900 Oliver note. Certainly, plaintiff's evidence affords no foundation for a finding of either fraud or mutual mistake. Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W.2d 890, 895(6), reversed on another ground 307 U.S. 478, 59 S.Ct. 943, 83 L.Ed. 1409, rehearing denied 308 U.S. 631, 60 S.Ct. 65, 84 L.Ed. 526; Ferguson v. Butler County, 297 Mo. 20, 247 S.W. 795, 796(2), 26 A.L.R. 1519; American Brewing Co. v. City of St. Louis, 187 Mo. 367, 376, 86 S.W. 129, 131; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412, 415; R. S. Jacobs Banking Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank, Mo.App., 34 S.W.2d 173, 183(3); Columbia Building Loan Ass'n v. Gill, Mo.App., 285 S.W. 181, 182(4); Pritchard v. People's Bank of Holcomb, 198 Mo.App. 597, 200 S.W. 665, 666(1). Since defendants charge "a mutual mistake," we do not discuss the right to recover on a unilateral mistake.