Cook v. Bingman, Case Number: 32351

• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: ARNOLD, J.
• Citation: 179 P.2d 470,198 Okla. 421,1947 OK 111
• Decision Date: 08 April 1947
• Docket Number: Case Number: 32351
• Parties: COOK v. BINGMAN

1947 OK 111
179 P.2d 470
198 Okla. 421

COOK
v.
BINGMAN

Case Number: 32351

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: April 8, 1947

Syllabus

¶0 1. PLEDGES - Pledge terminated by payment of debt secured.

A pledge of personal property as security for the payment of a debt is terminated by payment and discharge of the debt secured.

2. BAILMENT - Gratuitous bailment terminated by bailor's demand for possession and refusal of demand constitutes conversion.

A gratituous bailment with no duration specified may be terminated by the bailor at any time by demand for possession of his property, and a refusal thereof by the bailee constitutes a conversion.

3. SAME - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - Demand for possession of bailed property must be made within reasonable time.

When demand and refusal are necessary to constitute a conversion of bailed property, such demand must be made within a reasonable time, not beyond the period of limitations prescribed by statute.

Appeal from District Court, Okmulgee County; Jess I. Miracle, Judge.

Action by Harry C. Cook against Orus Bingman et al., executors of the estate of O.A. Bingman, deceased. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

G.R. Horner and H.S. Samples, both of Okmulgee, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. C. Beidleman, John L. Norman, and Cochran & Noble, all of Okmulgee, for defendants in error.

ARNOLD, J.

¶1 Plaintiff commenced his action in the district court of Okmulgee county August 12, 1941. By the amended petition, upon which the case was tried, he sought judgment for the sum of $40,000 actual damages and $10,000 punitive damage for the alleged conversion of certain personal property described oil well drilling tools, equipment and supplies. O.A. Bingman died in June, 1943, and the action was duly revived against his executors, but the case proceeded to trial under the original caption. The allegations of plaintiff's amended petition, and his evidence in support thereof, may be summarized as follows:

¶2 Prior to 1928, plaintiff was engaged in oil field drilling operations in the Cromwell field in Seminole county. He was the owner of three complete strings of standard drilling equipment. Some of these tools were used in drilling operations in plaintiff's own name, but a part thereof was used in drilling operations under the name of Micco Oil & Gas Company, a trade name under which plaintiff also operated, but he was the sole owner of all of the tools and equipment. When his drilling operations in the Cromwell field ended he had these strings of tools stacked on a lease near Cromwell with a caretaker in charge. Some time in 1928, the exact date not being disclosed, the sheriff of Seminole county levied upon and advertised these tools and equipment for sale under a personal tax warrant. By an oral arrangement made by plaintiff with one A. Michelson, of Wewoka, the latter purchased these tools and equipment at the sheriff's sale for the sum of $200. Thereafter plaintiff contacted the defendant and arranged with him to have these tools and equipment hauled from the Cromwell field to Okmulgee and stored on a lot there owned by defendant. Defendant paid the cost of hauling this property in the sum of $750. Prior to that time plaintiff was indebted to defendant in various sums of money, some evidenced by promissory notes, and on February 4, 1929, plaintiff made, executed and delivered to one D.M. Smith his promissory note for $5,000, which note Smith immediately endorsed, without recourse, to the defendant. This $5,000 note represented a merger of all of plaintiff's indebtedness to defendant, including the $750 paid for hauling the property and another item hereafter mentioned paid to Michelson. Seven days after the execution of this $5,000 note, the plaintiff and Michelson went to the office of the defendant in Okmulgee and there Michelson executed and delivered to defendant a bill of sale covering all of this property which Michelson had purchased at the tax sale. There was nothing in the bill of sale to indicate anything other than a straight sale and delivery of the property to the defendant by Michelson. The defendant then paid Michelson $200, being the purchase price at the tax sale, and $25 additional as Michelson's profit on the transaction. Both plaintiff and Michelson testifed that their arrangement was for Michelson to buy in the property at the tax sale with the right in plaintiff to redeem the property and acquire title thereto by paying Michelson the amount for which the property sold at the tax sale plus a reasonable commission or profit. Both testified that Michelson executed the bill of sale to the defendant at the direction of plaintiff, and plaintiff testified that the bill of sale of the property represented a pledge of the property to the defendant as security for the payment of the $5,000 note.

¶3 Plaintiff...