Guss v. Nelson

Decision Date15 January 1906
Docket NumberNo. 124,124
Citation26 S.Ct. 260,50 L.Ed. 489,200 U.S. 298
PartiesU. C. GUSS, J. W. McNeal, W. H. Gray, and Frank H. Greer, Appts. and Plffs. in Err. , v. J. T. NELSON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On May 28, 1900, at Guthrie, Oklahoma territory, the parties to this action entered into the following contract:

'Memorandum of agreement made and entered into this 28th day of May, 1900, to wit, as follows: J. T. Nelson agrees on his part to turn over 25 per cent of the capital stock of the following coal companies located in the Creek Nation, to wit: Sapulpa, Choctaw, Catoosa, Wewoka, Red Fork, Neyaka, Concharty, Tulsa, Car Creek, and Broken Arrow Mining Companies, to the following persons: U. C. Guss, W. H. Gray, F. H. Greer, and J. W. McNeal. The consideration of the delivery under which the above-listed stock and other stock as hereinafter described is as follows: This also includes the delivery of the records belonging to each of said above-named companies, the seals and other records that in any way belong to any of said companies. A payment of $500 is to be made in cash upon delivery of the above-named property, and additional property in the way of stock hereinafter listed. The $500 is to be considered an option on all said property until the 4th day of March, 1901. At that date the above-named parties are to pay to Nelson an additional sum of $4,500.00 (four thousand, five hundred dollars), or in lieu thereof to turn back to said Nelson all the property delivered by him. In addition to the above-mentioned 25 per cent of the capital stock aforesaid, which the said J. T. Nelson represents he owns in his own right, he agrees to turn over and deliver enough more stock to make the aggregate sum of stock delivered by him under this contract as follows:'

(Here follows a list of companies and number of shares of stock each.)

'The $500.00 above mentioned is to be earnest money, to be forfeited in case the balance of payment is not paid. Nelson also agrees to give U. C. Guss his proxy as director in each of the above-named companies until such time as it may be convenient for him to resign and Guss or someone else be elected to fill the vacancy.'

On April 6, 1901, Nelson brought suit in the district court of Logan county, Oklahoma territory, to recover the additional sum named in the contract. After answer the case was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in his favor on February 20, 1903, for $4,500 and interest. This was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory (14 Okla. 296, 78 Pac. 170), and its judgment was brought here both by appeal and writ of error.

Messrs. A. G. C. Bierer and Frank Dale for appellants and plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. W. R. Biddle, W. P. Dillard, Selwyn Douglas, George S. Green, and H. B. Martin for appellee and defendant in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:

[Argument of Counsel from pages 300-302 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

The appeal must be dismissed. Oklahoma City v. McMaster, 196 U. S. 529, 49 L. ed. 587, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324.

Considering the writ of error, we remark that no rulings were made in respect to the admission or rejection of testimony presenting anything worthy of consideration. No special findings of fact were made by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Curtis v. Sexton
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1910
    ... ... 611; Potts ... [125 S.W. 808] ... v. Whitehead, 20 N.J.Eq. 55; Waterman v ... Banks, 144 U.S. 394, 36 L.Ed. 479, 12 S.Ct. 646; ... Guss v. Nelson, 200 U.S. 298, 50 L.Ed. 489, 26 S.Ct ...          Otherwise, ... one could make uncertain, and use for [142 Mo.App. 186] ... ...
  • Monticello State Bank v. Killian
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1917
    ...Com. 199; 17 Me. 344; 35 Am. Dec. 262; 117 Mass. 321; 20 Me. 317; 49 Id. 97; 100 Mass. 200; 52 Conn. 52; 7 Cow. 752; 35 Cyc. p. 290 (f); 200 U.S. 298; 38 W.Va. 312; 6 Am. & Enc. Law (2 ed.) 463, 473; 84 Neb. 464; 121 N.W. 582; 59 Am. Dec. 187; 127 S.W. 722; 12 Cush. 281; 16 Q. B. 493; 117 E......
  • Curtis v. Sexton
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1910
    ...S. W. 611; Potts v. Whitehead, 20 N. J. Eq. 55; Waterman v. Banks, 144 U. S. 394, 12 Sup. Ct. 646, 36 L. Ed. 479; Guss v. Nelson, 200 U. S. 298, 26 Sup. Ct. 260, 50 L. Ed. 489. Otherwise, one could make uncertain, and use for speculative purposes, a contract manifestly designed to be perfor......
  • Monticello State Bank v. Killian
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1917
    ...the option reserved to rescind and return. Osborne v. Francis, 38 W. Va. 312, 18 S. E. 591, 45 Am. St. Rep. 859; Guss v. Nelson, 200 U. S. 298, 26 Sup. Ct. 260, 50 L. Ed. 489; Sturm v. Boker, 150 U. S. 312, 14 Sup. Ct. 99, 37 L. Ed. 1093; 35 Cyc. 290; Tiedeman on Sales, § 213; 1 Wharton on ......
  • 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