Boles v. Akers

• Citation: 116 Okla. 266,244 P. 182,1925 OK 859
• Decision Date: 27 October 1925
• Docket Number: Case Number: 15320
• Parties: BOLES et al. v. AKERS.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

1925 OK 859

244 P. 182

116 Okla. 266

BOLES et al. v. AKERS.

Case Number: 15320

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 27, 1925

Syllabus

¶0 1. Trusts--Constructive Trust--Evidence to Establish--Burden of Proof.

A constructive trust may be established by parol evidence, but the law for the safety of titles requires that the proof should be of the most satisfactory kind. The onus of establishing a constructive trust rests upon him who seeks its enforcement, and before a court of equity will be warranted in making a decree therefor, the evidence must be clear, unequivocal, and decisive.

2. Same.

The existence of a constructive trust, as well as of a resulting one, must be proved by clear, unequivocal evidence.

3. Trusts--Resulting Trust -- Furnishing Consideration Money for Purchase.

A resulting trust is that such a trust can arise only in favor of a person who claims to have furnished the consideration money, when such consideration, or some aliquot part thereof, was furnished as part of the original transaction at the time the purchase was made.

4. Joint Adventures--Similarity to Partnership--Single Transaction.

While the courts do not treat a joint adventure as identical with a partnership, it is so similar in its nature and in the contractual results created thereby that the rights as between the adventurers are governed by the same rules that govern partnerships. A joint adventure generally relates to a single transaction.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Error from District Court, Carter County; A. E. Walden, Judge.

Action by J. H. Akers against Z. L. Boles and T. D. Wagner. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Ledbetter & Ledbetter, for plaintiffs in error.

Moore & West, for defendant in error.

MAXEY, C.

¶1 This is an action by J. H. Akers against Z. L, Boles and T. D. Wagner, wherein Akers seeks to recover an interest in an overriding royalty based on the interest of what is known as the Ellis estate.

¶2 There was a motion filed by the defendants to require the plaintiff to make his petition more definite and certain, which was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff filed his amended petition. The 4th paragraph of said amended petition sets out plaintiff's case in the following language:

"The plaintiff alleges in his fourth paragraph, that he and T. D. Wagner and Z. L. Boles made and entered into an oral agreement to buy an oil and gas lease covering the interest in said above described property owned by the estate of James F. Ellis, deceased, and on the 13th day of December, 1922, in pursuance to said agreement, an oil and gas lease was purchased, covering the interest of the said James F. Ellis in said land, which was executed by T. H. Slover, the administrator of the said Ellis estate, and that the oil and gas lease was taken in the name of T. D. Wagner for the use and benefit of the plaintiff and T. D. Wagner and Z. L. Boles. That said oil and gas lease was recorded in the office of the county clerk of Carter county."

¶3 It appears from the pleadings and the evidence, that there were a large number of persons interested in a certain 100-acre tract of land. This 100-acre tract is not described in the pleadings, but it is agreed among the parties that it is located in Carter county, Okla., and that the plaintiff had an interest in the 100 acres, and both of the defendants had an interest, and several other parties had small interests in the 100-acre tract. But there was a 12 1/2-acre interest that belonged to J. H. Ellis, who died sometime before this litigation commenced, and the interest of his estate was sold through the probate court at the front door of the courthouse in Carter county. All of the parties interested in this 100-acre tract were anxious to get all of the interests consolidated, and the Cotton Belt Petroleum Company was anxious to acquire a lease on all of the interest, and agreed if it could get a lease on all of the interest it would drill a well and develop the lease.

¶4 It appears that the plaintiff, Akers, and Boles and Wagner were all officing in the same building, with a door between the offices which was usually kept open between the offices of the plaintiff and the defendants. Boles and Wagner were very active in acquiring the various interests, and had acquired all of the interest except that belonging to the Ellis estate, and it is the contention of plaintiff that he and the defendants Boles and Wagner entered into an agreement to have the Ellis interest sold through the probate court, and they would bid it in and own it jointly. This agreement is denied by Boles and Wagner. However, the lease was put up and sold, and it appears that the parties had the impression that there had to be three bids on the lease in order to have a legal sale. The lease was appraised at $ 7,000, and the plaintiff, Akers, made the first bid, and Boles made the second bid, and Wagner made the third bid, bidding $ 2,000, and it was knocked off to him, and before the confirmation day, Boles and Wagner made a deal with the Cotton Belt Petroleum Company to put up the purchase price of $ 2,000, and Wagner, the purchaser, would assign the lease to the Cotton Belt Petroleum Company. This agreement was carried out, and the Cotton Belt Petroleum Company put up the $ 2,000 to pay for the lease, so that neither one of the three parties who bid on the land had to put up any money. The Cotton Belt Petroleum Company took possession of the entire 100 acres, and commenced to drill a well (and have probably brought in the well--the evidence is not clear), and it was some two months afterwards discovered by Akers that the Cotton Belt Petroleum Company had given to Wagner an assignment of a one-eighth overriding royalty on this 12 1/2 acres bought from the Ellis estate. Akers brought this suit a few days after he learned that Wagner and Boles had this overriding royalty, and he claims that he is entitled to a one-third interest of the overriding royalty, by reason of the agreement that he claims he, Boles and Wagner entered into, prior to the sale of the said interests by the administrator.

¶5 This is in substance the controversy between plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff testified on the trial of the case, that he, Boles, and Wagner were the buyers of this 12 1/2 acres, each one to pay his part and to run it up to $ 2,000, that is, what it was appraised at, each one to pay his part; that each one was to pay one-third and each to own a one-third interest. He testified that he went over to the courthouse the day it was sold, and Mr. Boles asked him to make the first bid, and that he would make the second, and let Wagner buy it in. He said the agreement, between him and Boles and Wagner was an oral agreement and was not reduced to writing; that each one was to pay a one-third, but that the Cotton Belt Petroleum Company put up the money to pay the purchase price of the lease, and neither one of them had to put up any money; that...