Herrmann v. Blase

Decision Date02 March 1961
Docket NumberNo. 4321,4321
Citation77 Nev. 127,359 P.2d 745
PartiesWalter E. HERRMANN and Fern E. Herrmann, Appellants, v. August BLASE, Respondent.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

Streeter & Sala, Reno, for appellants.

Richards & Swanson, Reno, for respondent.

PIKE, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court in favor of respondent in the sum of $30,400.

The court found that appellants and respondent had entered into an oral contract that Blase was to contribute his personal services and finance the improvements on appellants' ranch property, and that appellants promised to pay Blase the sum of $31,000 therefor; that the contract was fully performed by Blase, and that the appellants breached the said contract on or about June 28, 1955; that the sum of $600, representing one-half of $1,200, received by Blase from lessors of certain grazing rights of the ranch, was due and payable to appellants and should be applied as a setoff against the $31,000 found to be due Blase, leaving a balance due respondent Blase of $30,400. Appellants appeal from the judgment based upon such findings.

The former owner of the Nevada potato ranch referred to herein was adjudicated a bankrupt in bankruptcy proceedings had in California. Walter E. Herrmann, one of the appellants herein, a California electrical contractor at the time of the bankruptcy adjudication, held a promissory note in the approximate amount of $144,00, secured by a deed of trust upon the ranch property. Herrmann, as a secured creditor, filed his claim in the bankuptcy proceeding.

Respondent Blase, who had for many years been engaged in the wholesale produce business, and who was familiar with the particular ranch then constituting an asset of the bankrupt's estate, also filed a creditor's claim in the bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of Blase Bros., the produce firm of which Blase was a member. Such claim was unsecured and was for the sum of $36,000, representing funds advanced to the bankrupt's ranching business in connection with a potato transaction prior to the bankruptcy. The evidence shows that about December 1, 1953, as the trustee in bankruptcy had been unable to effect a sale of the ranch, the bankruptcy court ordered the ranch conveyed to Herrmann. Herrmann and Blase were both present at the court session at which the order was entered. Prior to that date Blase had rendered services for the trustee in bankruptcy in connection with the ranch and his services in that regard terminated when the court ordered the ranch conveyed to Herrmann. Blase, while so acting for the trustee in bankruptcy, had among other things started proceedings to protect the range rights of the ranch. Blase testified that on the day of the court hearing above referred to he advised Herrmann that the range rights of the ranch were in jeopardy, and of the action instituted by Blase before the grazing authorities for the purpose of protecting such rights. Blase also informed appellants that he had cleaned up the ranch and made it more presentable for sale. Blase testified further, 'And at that time Mr. Herrmann asked me if I would consider remaining in the same capacity for him and in return for my services he would see that I was taken care of for as near as possible the amount of money that I had lost with the previous owner'; that respondent accepted Herrmann's offer at the time that it was made, about December 1, 1953, and that the amount then discussed between Herrmann and Blase as being due Blase was $36,000.

Blase further testified that thereafter he sought and obtained a reestablishment of the range rights and performed other services relating to the improvement of the ranch; that Herrmann accompanied Blase to the hearing upon the application for grazing rights, which Blase had previously filed on behalf of Herrmann; that early in 1954 respondent Blase incurred expense of about $700 for the repair of a water pump and additional expenses involving trips relating to the employment of laborers to clean up the ranch and show the ranch to prospective purchasers; that Blase was reimbursed for such expenses so incurred by the payment to him by Herrmann of $1,000, the balance over the actual expenses to be applied as partial compensation for respondent's services up to that date; that extensive cleaning up and repair operations to the ranch property, including land, structures, machinery and equipment were conducted under Blase's supervision; that Blase also effected the cleaning of ditches, repair of fences, reestablishment of ranch boundary stakes, leveling about 70 acres of land, and took action to acquire additional water rights for the ranch; that Blase advised Herrmann that Blase had listed the ranch at a sale price of $175,000; that Herrmann advised Blase the amount that Herrmann had invested in the ranch was $144,000 and that Herrmann told Blase that all Blase received over and above that sum could be retained by Blase. In April 1954 one Sanchez agreed to buy the ranch from appellant under a written six months' leasepurchase agreement, and respondent pursuant to a written agreement between him and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Sack v. Tomlin
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 30 March 1994
    ...as much as the plaintiff reasonably deserves for his labor in the absence of an agreed upon amount. See, e.g., Herrmann v. Blase, 77 Nev. 127, 359 P.2d 745 (1961); United Tungsten v. Corp. Svc., 76 Nev. 329, 353 P.2d 452 This court has previously addressed the doctrine of quantum meruit in ......
  • Flamingo Realty, Inc. v. Midwest Development, Inc.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 10 August 1994
    ...426, 427, 581 P.2d 8, 9 (1978) (citing Bartsas Realty, Inc. v. Leverton, 82 Nev. 6, 409 P.2d 627 (1966)); see also Herrman v. Blase, 77 Nev. 127, 133, 359 P.2d 745, 748 (1961) (the agreed compensation may become the amount of quantum meruit We also conclude from the record that the compensa......
  • City Council of City of Reno v. Irvine, 16810
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 26 June 1986
  • Florey v. Sinkey
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 2 June 1961
    ...for his services, under the established custom of the mining locality, became the reasonable value of such services. Herrmann v. Blase, 77 Nev. ----, 359 P.2d 745; Tamney v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co., 53 Nev. 7, 290 P. 1027; Siebert v. Smith, 49 Nev. 120, 239 P. Additional specification......
  • 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