144 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1944), 2944, Kasishke v. Baker

Docket Nº:2944.
Citation:144 F.2d 384
Party Name:KASISHKE et al. v. BAKER.
Case Date:August 02, 1944
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Page 384

144 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1944)




No. 2944.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

August 2, 1944

R. D. Hudson, William M. Taylor, Paul Pinson, I. J. Underwood and M. C. Rodolf all of Tulsa, Okl., for appellants.

M. A. Breckinridge, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS and MURRAH, Circuit Judges, and RICE, District Judge.

RICE, District Judge.

The appellee, plaintiff below, filed his suit against the appellants, defendants below, alleging that in 1932 he entered into an oral agreement with the defendant Kasishke, whereby they would enter into the oil business--Kasishke to furnish the money and plaintiff to devote his time and attention thereto in the capacity of general manager. It is alleged that the two corporate defendants are wholly owned by Kasishke and his family and completely under his domination and control. According to the alleged agreement plaintiff was to receive a small salary and in addition was to have a 10% interest in the properties acquired, it being contemplated that plaintiff's interest would not be realized upon until the properties had been substantially drilled and fully paid out. In the event the relation should terminate, plaintiff alleged he was to have a 10% interest in all oil and gas leases, as well as profits which might flow from them, acquired prior to the date of such termination. The agreement contemplated the purchase of oil and gas leases and their development. Pursuant to this agreement it is alleged that numerous oil and gas leases were acquired in both Oklahoma and Kansas, title to which was taken or held at time of trial in one or the other corporate defendants. Some of these leases proved to be valuable, their total value approximating $6,000,000 at time of trial. After the leases began to produce oil, trouble developed between plaintiff and Kasishke, resulting in a termination of the alleged relationship in June, 1939.

By his suit plaintiff sought the following relief: That the relationship existing between him and Kasishke be adjudged to be a joint venture and that plaintiff be adjudged to be the owner and entitled to a 1/10th of all properties acquired during the time the relationship continued, and that defendants be required to make, execute and deliver to him an assignment for an undivided 1/10th interest in and to all of said oil and gas leases. In addition, plaintiff asks that the defendants be required to

Page 385

account to him for 10% of all profits already accrued from said leases. Plaintiff seeks in the alternative that in the event the court should determine he is not the owner of a 10% interest in the properties, he then be decreed to be entitled to 10% of the profits derived from the oil and gas business conducted by defendants, and that he have an accounting for same.

Upon trial the court heard the evidence as to the alleged relationship existing between plaintiff and defendants, filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered the judgment from which this appeal is taken. By this judgment it was decreed 'that the plaintiff, B. A. Baker, have and recover of and from the defendants, A. H. Kasishke, Coralena Oil Company, and Olive Drilling...

To continue reading