Teel v. May Department Stores Co.

155 S.W.2d 74 (1941)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

(The Roberston casebook 5^th butchered the facts; we made them understandable). P and her sister-in-law, Leona Teel, who was separated from P's brother and had a divorce suit pending against him, lived together in St. Louis. Leona used the name Leona Nesslein, the name of her former husband to whom she was married before she married P's brother. Leona had met Mr. A. F. Foster. P went out with them, and Foster gave Leona $125, which it may be inferred she used for her divorce. Foster also told Leona he would buy her a fur coat. She selected a coat at D's store, paid $3 on it, and had it 'placed in the Will Call.' Foster went with her on October 27th, got the coat, and had it ($116) charged to his account. P had gone with them on that trip. Foster was married and lived with his wife and thirteen-year-old son. Foster showed Leona a clipping from a newspaper stating that a divorce suit had been filed by Fred Foster against Mary Foster (which was his wife's name) and Leona showed this to P. This story was a lie as Foster and his wife were never separated and were still living together at the time of the trial. Leona did buy, on Foster's account, such items as 'shoes, women's gloves, women's hose, handkerchiefs, two bridge sets, luncheon cloth, pot holder and six towels,' amounting to between thirty and forty dollars. Foster was employed by the Madison County, Illinois, Highway Department at $130 per month, and had no other income. His account with D was closed in December 1939, when his father furnished the money to pay for the fur coat and other items. On November 29, Leona asked P to accompany her to D's store. Leona purchased items stating that she was Mrs. A. F. Foster. After the shopping spree was done a detective, Mr. Zytowski came over to P and asked her if she was charging on the Foster account and she motioned to Leona. They were asked to go to the store’s credit department. D had contacted the real Mrs. Foster and knew that no one else was authorized to make purchases on the account. When questioned Leona claimed she was Mrs. Foster. The credit manager unmasked the fraud, and P returned the goods now in Leona’s car. D refused to let them leave the office until they signed a confession. P sued D for $20,000 actual and $20,000 punitive damages for false arrest and imprisonment. The court instructed that any imprisonment greater than necessary to get the goods returned was false imprisonment. P was awarded $500 in actual and $500 in punitive damages. P appealed (not enough damages), and D appealed (for the failure of the court to properly instruct the jury).