Haggard Drilling, Inc. v. Greene, 40117
Decision Date | 31 December 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 40117,40117 |
Citation | 195 Neb. 136,236 N.W.2d 841 |
Parties | HAGGARD DRILLING, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. Ralph W. GREENE et al., Appellees. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. A quasi-contract is a contract implied in law and usually has its origin in the principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.
2. The law will not imply a promise against the express declaration of the party to be charged, made at the time of the supposed undertaking, unless such party is under legal obligation paramount to his will to perform some duty, and he is not under such legal obligation unless there is a demand in equity and good conscience that he should perform the duty.
3. The mere fact that a third person benefits from a contract between two other persons does not make such third person liable in quasi-contract or unjust enrichment.
4. Where a third person benefits from a contract entered into between two other persons, in the absence of some misleading act by the third person, the mere failure of performance by one of the contracting parties does not give rise to a right of restitution against the third party.
McGinley, Lane, Mueller, Shanahan, McQuillan & Gale, Ogallala, for appellant.
Curtis & Curtis, Imperial, for Helen Maddux.
Owens & Owens, Benkelman, for Thomas A. Maddux.
Heard before SPENCER, McCOWN and NEWTON, JJ., and COLWELL and IRONS, District Judges.
This is a suit to recover $13,219.60 as the unpaid balance due for drilling five irrigation wells. Plaintiff claims three theories of recovery, express contract, implied contract, and quasi-contract based upon unjust enrichment. Defendant Ralph W. Greene was not served with process; he did not appear. The default of defendant Edward L. Lewis was entered. Issues were joined as to defendants Maddux, and trial thereon was had to the court. Judgment was entered for defendants Maddux. We affirm.
On April 17, 1970, defendants Thomas A. Maddux and Helen Maddux, husband and wife, as sellers, by written option and agreement, granted to Ralph W. Greene and Edward L. Lewis an option to purchase a 3,800-acre ranch in Hayes County, Nebraska, hereafter called the Palisades Place. At the time the sellers lived on another nearby ranch property called the Enders Place. Both ranch properties were titled in the name of Thomas A. Maddux. Buyers were residents of Colorado. The material parts of the option are:
The deadline for exercising the option by the buyers or other persons they might direct was May 18, 1970. After executing the option defendant Helen Maddux did nothing more concerning that instrument, its terms, or its performance.
On April 17, 1970, Greene, Lewis, and Thomas A. Maddux talked to Jon Elson, manager of the Haggard & Sargent Drilling Company at its office in Imperial, Nebraska, concerning the drilling of 12 irrigation wells as provided in the option. Shortly thereafter there were more than two other conversations on the same subject matter between Lewis, Greene, and Elson. A copy of the option was exhibited to Elson; he read parts of it; and he understood the ownership of the lands involved and the relationship of the parties to the option, particularly, that the buyers had the sole obligation to secure the drilling of 12 wells and pay for the same. Elson submitted the drilling proposition to the board of directors of the Haggard & Sargent Drilling Company, which generally approved its acceptance and understood the buyers were to pay for the wells. Thereafter it was orally agreed between Elson, acting for the Haggard & Sargent Drilling Company, and Lewis and Greene for the Spring Creek Land and Cattle Company to drill the 12 wells as provided in the option. It was understood and agreed that Lewis and Greene were obligated to pay for the well drilling on the basis of reasonable charges, less 5 per cent discount for volume and the making of payments every 30 days. There was no understanding between any of the parties that the sellers were to pay or underwrite or guarantee the payment for any of the wells drilled; and there is no evidence in the record that sellers at any time represented to the driller or its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bennett Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NationsBank of Maryland
...Christle v. Marberg, 421 N.W.2d 748 (Minn.Ct.App.1988); Skjod v. Hofstede, 402 N.W.2d 839 (Minn.Ct.App.1987); Haggard Drilling, Inc. v. Greene, 195 Neb. 136, 236 N.W.2d 841 (1975); Insulation Contracting & Supply v. Kravco, Inc., 209 N.J.Super. 367, 507 A.2d 754 (1986); Graystone Materials ......
-
Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
...at the expense of another.3 Hoffman v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 227 Neb. 66, 416 N.W.2d 216, 219 (1987) (citing Haggard Drilling, Inc. v. Greene, 195 Neb. 136, 236 N.W.2d 841, 845 (1975)). When the inequitable and unconscionable retention of a benefit occurs, Nebraska law requires the recipient to ......
-
Wyeth, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, No. 1050926 (Ala. 1/15/2010)
...a party was unjustly enriched in the sense that the term "unjustly" could mean illegally or unlawfully.'); Haggard Drilling, Inc. v. Greene, 195 Neb. 136, 236 N.W.2d 841 (Neb. 1975) (fraud, misrepresentation, or other wrongful conduct required on the part of the defendant to prove unjust en......
-
Thimjon Farms P'ship v. First Int'l Bank & Trust
...is not liable under unjust enrichment simply for benefitting from a contract between two other parties. See Haggard Drilling, Inc. v. Greene, 195 Neb. 136, 236 N.W.2d 841, 846 (1975) ( “The mere fact that a third person benefits from a contract between two other persons does not make such t......