Greater Oklahoma City Amusements, Inc. v. Moyer

Decision Date17 November 1970
Docket NumberNo. 42608,42608
PartiesGREATER OKLAHOMA CITY AMUSEMENTS, INC., Plaintiff in Error, v. Ralph A. MOYER, Defendant in Error.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. An entire claim or demand cannot be split so as to be made the subject of different actions for different parts, and if this is done and separate actions are brought, a judgment on the merits in one will bar the others.

2. The general rule against splitting causes of action is that a single wrong gives rise to one cause of action and for which only one suit may be maintained to recover all damages which had then accrued because of the commission of such wrong, however, numerous the element or items of damage resulting therefrom.

3. A severable contract is one susceptible of division and apportionment in its nature and purpose, and having two or more parts, not necessarily dependent on each other, nor so intended by the parties, in respect to matters and things contemplated and embraced in the contract, and whether a contract is entire or severable is primarily a question of intention to be determined from language used by the parties and the subject matter of agreement.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County; Dwain Box, Judge.

Appeal by Greater Oklahoma City Amusements, Inc., (defendant below) contesting validity of judgment rendered in favor of Ralph A. Moyer (plaintiff below) for $175.00, representing funds allegedly spent by plaintiff pursuant to employment contract with defendant. Reversed with directions.

Keith McMillin, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

James F. Fellingham, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

DAVISION, Justice.

Greater Oklahoma City Amusements, Inc. (defendant below) appeals from a jury verdict rendered against it in favor of Ralph A. Moyer (plaintiff below) for $175.00. We will refer to the parties by their trial court designation.

The single proposition of error presented by defendant is that plaintiff split his cause of action and filed multiple lawsuits against defendant and that plaintiff was barred from prosecuting the present action.

This is an appeal in simplified form. The stipulation of the parties and the testimony of plaintiff disclose the following facts pertinent to the above proposition of error. Defendant was the owner of one or more theatres in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and plaintiff was a 'publicist' or publicity man. A short time prior to April 4, 1966, as a result of one or more telephone calls to plaintiff in Atlantic City, New Jersey, the defendant employed plaintiff to work in Oklahoma City as a promotion or publicity director. The employment agreement was entirely oral. Plaintiff testified that the agreement was that he was to receive $135.00 per week 'Plus all expenses, * * * not only to Oklahoma City, but afterwards;' that 'all expenses' meant 'all expenses including the hotel room rent and meals, as well as entertainment expense, transportation, tips;' that he 'only had one contract with' defendant, and that was 'Salary, plus all expenses.'

Plaintiff traveled to Oklahoma City and after working three or four weeks was discharged. His transportation to Oklahoma City and his salary of $135.00 a week was paid by defendant. Plaintiff then filed three separate actions against defendant in a Justice of the Peace Court, being: No. 7724, for $120.00 for 'reimbursement for hotel bills;' No. 7725 for $123.98 for 'reimbursement for train fare;' and No. 7726 for $175.00 for 'reimbursement for meals, fares and expenses arising out of entertainment.' (Each of these cases was less than the maximum $200.00 jurisdictional limit in Justice of the Peace Courts.) At the trial the defendant announced ready in 7724, and moved the dismissal of 7725 and 7726. The court tried the cases and at the conclusion thereof found for the defendants on the merits in 7724 ('hotel bills'), sustained the motion to dismiss in 7725 ('train fare'), and rendered judgment for plaintiff in 7726 ('entertainment').

Plaintiff did not appeal from the adverse judgments rendered in 7724 and 7725. Defendant did appeal to the Common Pleas Court from the judgment rendered against it in 7726.

In the Common Pleas Court the defendant moved that the action (formerly 7726) be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had split his cause of action. This motion was denied. The action was then tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor for $175.00.

It is defendant's contention that the contract of employment was an entire or indivisible contract which would support only a single cause of action. Defendant contends that plaintiff was guilty of splitting this cause of action when he filed the three separate actions in the Justice of the Peace Court, and that the final disposition of the first filed action (No. 7724) effectively barred plaintiff from prosecuting the present action.

In Hugh Breeding, Inc. v. Godwin, 208 Okl. 617, 258 P.2d 157, 160, we said that an entire claim or demand cannot be split so as to be made the subject of different actions for different parts, and, if this is done and separate actions are brought, a judgment on the merits in one will bar the others.

The general rule against splitting causes of action is that a single wrong gives rise to one cause of action and for which only one suit may be maintained to recover all damages which had then accrued because of the commission of such wrong, however numerous the element or items of damage resulting therefrom. State ex rel. Brett, County Atty. v. North American Life Ins. Co. of Chicago, Ill., 203 Okl. 672, 225 P.2d 796, 798. 1 C.J.S....

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • In re Payless Cashways, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Eighth Circuit
    • February 10, 1999
    ...to take the whole or none, then the contract would be entire; otherwise it would be severable." Id. (quoting Greater Oklahoma City Amusements v. Moyer, 477 P.2d 73, 76 (Okla.1970)). Of primary importance to consider is the intention of the parties. "A contract may both in its nature and by ......
  • Tucker v. Cochran Firm-Criminal Def. Birmingham L. L.C.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • December 16, 2014
    ...forum selection clause is deemed to be separate from, and independent of, the contract containing it.”)41 Greater Oklahoma City Amusements, Inc. v. Moyer, 1970 OK 213, 477 P.2d 73, 75 (quoting a legal encyclopedia).42 Greater Oklahoma City Amusements, Inc. v. Moyer, 1970 OK 213, 477 P.2d at......
  • Tucker v. Cochran Firm-Criminal Def. Birmingham L.L.C.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • December 16, 2014
    ...of this separability doctrine, a forum selection clause is deemed to be separate from, and independent of, the contract containing it.”) 41.Greater Oklahoma City Amusements, Inc. v. Moyer, 1970 OK 213, 477 P.2d 73, 75 (quoting a legal encyclopedia). 42.Greater Oklahoma City Amusements, Inc.......
  • Rawdon v. Starwood Capital Grp.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • July 9, 2019
    ...recognized that a contract is severable, depending upon "particular circumstances in each case." Id. ¶ 27 (citing Greater Okla. City Amusements, Inc. v. Moyer , 1970 OK 213, ¶ 10, 477 P.2d 73, 75 ). ¶26 A forum selection clause which is established to be prima facie valid shall be enforced ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT