Carter Oil Co. v. Garr
| Decision Date | 13 August 1918 |
| Docket Number | 9416. |
| Citation | 174 P. 498,73 Okla. 28,1918 OK 469 |
| Parties | CARTER OIL CO. v. GARR et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a party has two or more distinct and separate reasons for the obtainment of the relief he asks, and where there is some uncertainty as to the grounds of recovery, the complaint may set forth a single claim, or ask for the same relief in several distinct counts or statements.
A memorandum relied upon by the plaintiffs in error as a written contract examined, and held insufficient to constitute a contract, so as to preclude the right of recovery in this action to the defendants in error.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from District Court, Payne County; John P. Hickam, Judge.
Suit by O. A. Garr and A. R. Swann against the Carter Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Jas. A Veasey and L. G. Owen, both of Tulsa, and Robert A. Lowry, of Stillwater, for plaintiff in error.
L. V Orton, of Pawnee, for defendants in error.
The defendants in error instituted suit in the lower court against the plaintiff in error to recover commissions alleged to be due to them for services performed in procuring certain leases for the company. In the petition two causes of action are set up-one upon an express contract, the other upon a quantum meruit; both, however, relating to the same transaction. In the first cause of action it is alleged that on the 21st day of March, 1916, the plaintiffs below made and entered into an oral agreement with the company whereby they were employed by the company to procure for it certain oil and gas leases upon certain real estate in Payne county Okl., and for their services in procuring said leases the plaintiff in error agreed to pay them a commission of $2.50 per acre, and that under and by virtue of said agreement they performed said services-that is, procured said leases-and was due therefor the sum of $1,400. In the second cause of action they allege the same state of facts, but seek to recover upon a quantum meruit, alleging that a fair and reasonable price for their services was $2.50 per acre, and that they had performed all they were employed to do, and that there was justly due them the sum of $1,400.
The defendant below filed an answer, which consisted of a general denial, and the further defense that on or about the 21st day of March, 1916, it entered into an agreement with said plaintiffs for the purchase of the oil and gas leases set forth in the petition, but denied that said agreement was oral, or that the terms and conditions thereof were as set forth in said petition, and denied that it employed the plaintiffs to procure said leases for it, as alleged in either cause of action. It is further contended that the agreement between them was in writing, and copies thereof were attached to the answer, by the terms of which it is alleged they were only paid $2.50 per acre, same being the entire consideration which it was to pay for said leases, and that the $2.50 included the price to the owner as well as to the commission to the plaintiffs below.
A trial was had in the lower court, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs below for the sum of $500, from which the company has appealed, and assigns as error: First, that the lower court should not have submitted this cause to the jury upon an express contract and upon a quantum meruit; second, that the lower court erred in not requiring the plaintiffs at the close of their evidence in chief to elect upon which count they would stand, whether upon an express contract or upon a quantum meruit; third, that the court erred in not submitting to the jury the entire law of the case, and in failing to submit to the jury the right of the defendant below to have a verdict, if the jury found that the express contract was made, upon the terms claimed by the defendant; fourth, that the court erred in admitting evidence over the objections of the defendant as to the reasonable value of the plaintiffs' services; fifth, that the court erred in refusing to give instructions requested by the defendant.
Thus it will be seen that, under the allegations of the pleadings here, plaintiffs below contended in the first instance that they had an express oral contract with the company, whereby the company agreed to pay them $1,400 for the performance of certain services, and that they had performed said services and said amount was due; and in the second count of said petition they sought to recover upon a quantum meruit for the services thus performed, and that the defendant company contended that the entire contract and...
To continue reading
Request your trial