Harmon v. National Supply Co. of Kansas
| Decision Date | 12 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 8094. |
| Citation | 166 P. 80,65 Okla. 259,1917 OK 321 |
| Parties | HARMON v. NATIONAL SUPPLY CO. OF KANSAS ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
When the question of the existence of a partnership is a matter of doubt to be determined by inference to be drawn from all the evidence, it is one of fact for the jury, and is error for the court to direct a verdict for either plaintiff or defendant on this issue.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Conn Linn, Judge.
Suit by the National Supply Company of Kansas, a corporation, against C. C. Harmon and others. Judgment for plaintiff upon a directed verdict against defendant Harmon, his motion for new trial overruled, and he brings error. Reversed and remanded.
A Carey Hough, of Oklahoma City, J. Wood Glass, of Nowata, and W. D. Humphrey, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
W. N Banks, of Independence, Kan., and Randolph, Haver & Shirk, of Tulsa, for defendants in error.
This was a suit instituted in the district court of Tulsa county by National Supply Company, one of the defendants in error against plaintiff in error and his codefendants in error upon a supply account for $1,143.22, with interest, and foreclosure of materialman's lien upon a certain oil and gas mining lease, including leasehold equipment and material furnished. There was no dispute as to the correctness of the account, and the only issue involved in the trial below was whether or not the plaintiff in error, C. C. Harmon, and the defendant in error Chas. F. Whitehill were partners in the development of an oil and gas lease for which the supplies were furnished, so that the defendant Chas. F. Whitehill could bind the plaintiff in error, C. C. Harmon, for the payment of said account, the same having been contracted for by Chas. F. Whitehill. The evidence on part of plaintiff in error discloses that C. C. Harmon was a resident of Nowata and Chas. F. Whitehill a resident of Tulsa; that Whitehill had located a tract of land that looked good for oil in the Redfork sand, and that he advised Harmon that they could get a half interest in an oil and gas lease upon the land by putting down a well, the lease owner agreeing to furnish one-half of the casing and some supplies to be used in the prosecution of this development. Harmon went to Tulsa and looked over the proposition and declined it, but indicated that, if they could secure another 40 acres located near this upon the same terms and conditions, he might be interested. Some days later Whitehill called Harmon over the phone and stated that he could get the 40 acres. Harmon stated that he did not have time to look over the matter and investigate it, but if he thought it was good to go ahead and drill a well, and when the same was completed he could draw on him for one-half interest in it.
It was the contention of Harmon that he was in no sense a partner of Whitehill, had never agreed to become such, and that the only connection he had with the transaction was that he had agreed to pay half of the cost that Whitehill incurred in completing a well upon the premises for a one-fourth interest in the well and lease, and was only a cotenant of Whitehill in this lease and well.
It was the contention of the supply company that Harmon and Whitehill were general partners in the prosecution of this development, and that Whitehill had the authority to bind Harmon for all accounts incurred in the development of this lease. There was no written partnership contract, and the supplies were not furnished upon any representation made by Harmon. Whitehill claimed that he had authority from Harmon to buy the supplies in question, and that they were general partners in this transaction.
After the evidence was all in both parties moved for an instructed verdict. The court sustained the motion of plaintiff, and instructed the jury to return the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant, finding as a matter of law that a partnership existed...
To continue reading
Request your trial