Knapp v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 3207.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPHILLIPS, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit
Citation154 F.2d 395
PartiesKNAPP v. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO. OF OKLAHOMA CITY et al.
Docket NumberNo. 3207.,3207.
Decision Date26 March 1946

154 F.2d 395 (1946)

KNAPP
v.
FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO. OF OKLAHOMA CITY et al.

No. 3207.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 26, 1946.


154 F.2d 396

G. C. Spillers, of Tulsa, Okl. (G. C. Spillers, Jr., of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.

F. A. Rittenhouse, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (John F. Webster, Walter D. Hanson, and Olive R. Rittenhouse, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

On March 25, 1944, Clyde L. and Eugene C. Ottinger, copartners doing business as Ottinger Brothers, entered into a contract1 with Gage by which the Ottingers agreed to sell to Gage certain road machinery and equipment, described and set forth in exhibits attached to the sale contract, for a total consideration of $200,000, to be paid as follows: $100,000 within 30 days, $50,000 within 60 days, and $50,000 within 120 days, from the date of the sale contract. The sale contract designated the First National Bank and Trust Company of Oklahoma City2 as escrow agent and provided that the sale contract, together with bills of sale, either in blank or covering the machinery and equipment, should be deposited with the escrow agent; that all payments should be made to the escrow agent; that as payments were made, the escrow agent should deliver appropriate bills of sale and distribute such payments to the Ottingers. It further provided that simultaneously with its execution, Gage should pay to the escrow agent $5,000, to be distributed by the escrow agent for one of the following purposes:

"(a) To the Buyer, if Seller shall breach this Agreement.

"(b) To the Seller, as liquidated damages if Buyer shall breach this Agreement.

"(c) To the Seller, as the final $5,000.00 payment of the total $200,000.00 consideration, upon complete consummation of the Agreement."

On April 25, 1944, Gage entered into a partnership agreement with Knapp. The partnership agreement recited that Gage and the Ottingers had entered into the sale contract and that the terms thereof were well known to Knapp; that Gage had undertaken to make certain payments under the sale contract and was in need of financial assistance to make such payments; and that Knapp was willing to advance $25,000 to Gage to be used to make a payment on the sale contract. It provided that Knapp, within one week from April 25, 1944, would deliver to Gage $25,000, to be wired to the escrow agent and to be applied by it as a part payment by Gage on the sale contract, and that Knapp and Gage should share equally in the profits derived from the sale contract and bear equally the expenses incident to the selling of the property acquired under the sale contract.

On May 15, 1945, Knapp commenced this action against the escrow agent, Gage, and the Ottingers. In his second amended complaint, Knapp alleged the requisite jurisdictional facts and that on May 2, 1944, he deposited with the escrow agent $25,000 in cash. He further alleged the execution of the sale contract and the partnership agreement and attached copies thereof, as exhibits, to his complaint. He further alleged that on April 25, 1944, Gage exhibited to him the sale contract and stated to him that she "had complied with all the terms and conditions" thereof, and that she would in the future "fully and faithfully perform and discharge" all the terms and conditions thereof; that he deposited the $25,000 with the escrow agent pursuant to the partnership agreement and that the escrow agent still has such deposit in its possession; that the statements of Gage were made to him with the design and purpose of inducing him to enter into the partnership agreement; that he relied thereon and was induced thereby to enter into the partnership

154 F.2d 397
agreement; that such statements were false and known by Gage to be false when made; that Gage did not intend to carry out the terms and conditions of the sale contract and did not intend to carry out the terms of the partnership agreement; that immediately after the execution of the partnership agreement, he discovered the fraud; that thereupon he notified the escrow agent, the Ottingers, and Gage that he had been defrauded and that he elected to rescind the partnership agreement, and demanded the return from the escrow agent of the $25,000 deposited by him; and that the escrow agent refused to return such deposit

He prayed that the partnership agreement be canceled, that he be adjudged to be the owner of the amount deposited with the escrow agent, that the Ottingers and Gage be adjudged to have no interest in such deposit, and that he be awarded judgment against the escrow agent for $25,000.

In his second amended complaint, Knapp did not allege any facts connecting either the escrow agent or the Ottingers with the alleged fraud or showing any knowledge on their part of the alleged fraud until after the $25,000 had been received by the escrow agent from Knapp.

The escrow agent filed an answer and cross-claim. It admitted the jurisdictional facts and admitted that the Ottingers asserted a claim to the funds deposited with it. It denied the other allegations of Knapp's second amended complaint. In its cross-claim it set up the sale contract and attached a copy thereto, as an exhibit, to its answer. It further alleged that on March 27, 1944, the United...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Ebker v. Tan Jay Intern. Ltd., 78 Civ. 0905 (IBC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 5, 1990
    ...to the rule of undivided loyalty has been insisted upon by the Courts without exception. See Knapp v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 154 F.2d 395, 398 (10th Cir., 1946); Boxill v. Boxill, 201 Misc. 386, 389, 111 N.Y.S.2d 33, 36 (Sup.Ct. N.Y. Co.1952); In re Kohn's Estate, 26 Misc.2d 659, ......
  • Mursor Builders, Inc. v. Crown Mountain Apartment Assocs., Civil No. 74/731
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of the Virgin Islands
    • October 5, 1978
    ...Co., 96 F.Supp. 53 (W.D. La.), aff'd., 195 F.2d 870 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 344 U.S. 836 (1952); Knapp v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 154 F.2d 395 (10th Cir. 1946); Johnson v. Johnson, 82 F.Supp. 915 (E.D. Pa. 1949). Similarly, a court of equity will not interfere with internal partner......
  • Mursor Builders v. Crown Mountain Apt. Assoc., Civ. No. 74/731
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of the Virgin Islands
    • October 5, 1978
    ...aff'd., 195 F.2d 870 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 344 U.S. 836, 73 S.Ct. 46, 97 L.Ed. 651 (1952); Knapp v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 154 F.2d 395 (10th Cir. 1946); Johnson v. Jackson, 82 F.Supp. 915 (E.D.Pa. 1949). Similarly, a court of equity will not interfere with internal partnership ......
  • In re Bell & Beckwith, Bankruptcy No. 85-0024.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • January 19, 1990
    ...the partnership agreement, it has the effect of voiding the contract ab initio. See, e.g., Knapp v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 154 F.2d 395, 398 (10th Cir.1946); Volpe v. Schlobohm, 614 S.W.2d 615, 618 (Tex.Civ.App.1981); Solomont v. Polk Development Co., 245 Cal.App.2d 488, 54 Cal.Rp......
  • 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