James v. Honaker Drilling, Inc., 5726.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 5726.,5726. |
| Citation | 254 F.2d 702 |
| Parties | Harry L. JAMES and C. R. Virtue, Appellants, v. HONAKER DRILLING, INC., a Kansas corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Charles Hill Johns, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Anita Ellerbee, Smith, Johns & Neuffer, Oklahoma City, Okl., William F. Pielsticker, Edwyn R. Sherwood, Pielsticker & Sherwood, Wichita, Kan., were with him on the brief), for appellants.
Robert Martin, Wichita, Kan. (Barton Carothers, Great Bend, Kan., George B. Collins, Oliver M. Hughes, Kenneth W. Pringle, Jr., William F. Schell, Thomas M. Burns, George R. Docking, Wichita, Kan., were with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
Harry L. James and C. R. Virtue sued Honaker Drilling, Inc., to recover damages for alleged wrongful acts on the part of the defendant which made it impossible for plaintiffs to earn a broker's fee from San Juan Exploration Company. It was alleged in the complaint that plaintiffs were brokers; that defendant advised plaintiffs that it desired to sell its oil and gas properties; that defendant employed plaintiffs to negotiate for it a sale of such properties; that plaintiffs were instrumental in interesting San Juan Exploration Company as a prospective purchaser of the properties; that the prospective purchaser agreed to pay plaintiffs a commission of $30,000 if it purchased the properties; that the defendant was advised of the agreement of the prospective purchaser to pay such commission; that in the course of negotiations between defendant and the prospective purchaser, defendant offered to sell the properties to the prospective purchaser for $1,700,000; that by mutual agreement between the defendant and the prospective purchaser, the latter was given a specified time within which to complete its investigation of the properties; that the prospective purchaser advised defendant that it would purchase the properties at approximately the price set by defendant, but before the investigation of the properties was completed, defendant sold them to Colorado Oil and Gas Company; and that in such wrongful manner defendant breached its contract of employment of plaintiffs and made it impossible for plaintiffs to earn the commission which the prospective purchaser had agreed to pay them in the event it purchased the properties. By answer, the defendant denied that it employed plaintiffs to negotiate a sale of the properties; denied that it made an unqualified offer to sell the properties to the prospective purchaser; denied that the prospective purchaser ever advised defendant that it would purchase the properties at defendant's price; and denied that the prospective purchaser was ever ready, able, and willing to make the purchase at defendant's price. After issues were joined, the depositions of both plaintiffs and of R. J. Bateman, agent of the prospective purchaser, were taken. Thereafter the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in its favor. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the depositions, such judgment was entered; and plaintiffs appealed.
Without conflict, the depositions disclosed these facts. James and Virtue resided in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and they maintained offices there. They were brokers dealing in oil and gas properties and drilling operations. Louis Thompson, a resident of Hutchinson, Kansas, was also a broker dealing in like properties and operations in Kansas. Honaker was a corporation with offices in Great Bend, Kansas, and it owned certain oil and gas properties in Kansas. Joe J. Honaker acted for the corporation. San Juan Exploration Company maintained offices in Dallas, Texas, and it was engaged in the business of acquiring, developing, and selling oil and gas properties. Bateman resided in Oklahoma City, and he was agent for San Juan. James had an arrangement with Bateman through which he submitted to Bateman from time to time for the consideration of San Juan purchasable oil and gas properties. While in Wichita, Kansas, looking for production deals for purchasers whom they represented, James and Virtue met Thompson and learned from him that a portion of the properties owned by Honaker could be acquired for approximately $340,000. Thompson arranged an appointment for James and Virtue to call on Honaker. Upon reaching Honaker's office, James and Virtue stated to Honaker that they were brokers and had buyers for properties. They stated that they were not prospective purchasers but represented somebody else that had money and could buy the properties. Honaker stated to James and Virtue that he did not want to offer the properties for sale until an engineering report then being made was completed and he had time to review it. James and Virtue told Honaker that they would contact him again later after he had received the report. About a week later, James called Honaker on long distance telephone and was told that Honaker had received the report but had not had time to review it and that he and his associates were not in position to furnish any information at that time. But he agreed to call James when the review had been made. About a week later, Honaker called James on long distance and told him that the Honaker Company had decided to sell all of its properties and he inquired whether the people whom James and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
...there was no genuine issue of fact for trial as to defendant's inability to receive. Fed.R. Civ.P. 56(e). See James v. Honaker Drilling, Inc., 254 F.2d 702, 706 (10 Cir. 1958). 2 A few courts have held to the contrary, e. g., St. Louis, Southwestern R. R. v. Mays, 177 F.Supp. 182 (E.D.Ark.1......
-
Bushman Construction Company v. Conner, 6931.
...Oklahoma Furniture Mfg. Co., 10 Cir., 269 F.2d 918, 74 A.L.R.2d 978; Alaniz v. United States, 10 Cir., 257 F.2d 108; James v. Honaker Drilling, Inc., 10 Cir., 254 F.2d 702; Zampos v. United States Smelting, Ref. and Mining Co., 10 Cir., 206 F.2d 171. While it is the duty of the trial court ......
-
Krieger v. Ownership Corporation
...United States, 326 U.S. 1, 6, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 89 L.Ed. 2013 * * *." (Emphasis supplied.) To the same effect see James v. Honaker Drilling, Inc., 10 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 702, 706. There remains this to be Even in the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact a summary judgment may on......
-
Wood v. Trenchard
...pp. 536-537 (1973). In support thereof see Stansifer v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, 9 Cir., 487 F.2d 59, 63; James v. Honaker Drilling, Inc., 10 Cir., 254 F.2d 702, 706; and Gifford v. Travlers Protective Ass'n of America, 9 Cir., 153 F.2d 209, 211. We will determine this mater under this ......