McBee v. Dennis, 33709
| Decision Date | 13 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 33709,33709 |
| Citation | 204 Okla. 296,229 P.2d 179 |
| Parties | McBEE et al. v. DENNIS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The admission of hearsay evidence which is calculated to mislead the jury and prejudice the rights of the litigant against whose interest such hearsay evidence is admitted constitutes reversible error.
2. It is the duty of the trial judge to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof and all other questions properly raised in the trial of a case.
Alpheus Varner and Babb & Babb, Poteau, Brown, Darrough & Ball, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
C. C. Williams, Poteau, E. O. Clark, Stigler, for defendant in error.
The positions of the parties were reversed below. They will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
The Central Life Insurance Co. of Fort Scott, Kansas, owned a 262.67 acre tract of land in Secs. 1 & 2 in Twp. 6 North, Range 25 East, in Le Flore County, Oklahoma, in the valley of the Poteau River. The plaintiff had lived on this land as a boy. It was subject to overflow, and while a part of it had been cleared at one time, it had been permitted to grow up in underbrush. The plaintiff heard that the land was owned by the insurance company and decided to buy it, so he went to the defendant G. C. McBee, who he understood was the representative of the insurance company, and told him that he wanted to buy the land. McBee replied that he did not know whether or not the land was for sale, but that the plaintiff could enter into a rental contract for the land, and that he, McBee, would communicate with the insurance company and find out the value of the land, and they would then go ahead with proceedings whereby the plaintiff could buy the land.
It appears from the plaintiff's evidence that the defendant McBee never did obtain from the insurance company a price on the land, and although plaintiff frequently asked McBee to get the price for him, McBee would give the excuse that the company probably did not want to sell the land, or some other excuse, but that when they did get around to selling it, he would see that the plaintiff was protected and had first chance to buy the land.
It was further testified, either by plaintiff or in his behalf, as follows: That plaintiff entered into lease contracts for this land annually for the years 1940 to and including 1945. He paid the rental which was agreed upon, except for $75 which was part of the rental for 1945. The plaintiff expended a great deal of time and money improving the property so that rice could be grown upon it. In 1945, he went to California to work, but sent money back to make the payments that he was required to make under the contract, evidencing an intention to keep himself in position to buy the land. When he came back to Oklahoma in 1945, he learned that the land was being purchased by some one else, and he went to the home office of the insurance company in Fort Scott, Kansas, and from them learned that the land had been contracted to be sold to Henry Best, a stepson of G. C. McBee; and from the undisputed evidence the land was being bought for the benefit of G. C. McBee, in the name of Henry Best. The price that Best was required to pay for the land was $2,500. The insurance company executed a special warranty deed to Henry Best on April 29, 1946, covering the land in question, and on May 24, 1947, Henry Best and his wife conveyed the land by warranty deed to Leo Best, a brother of Henry Best, and Grace Louise Best, his wife. The deed to Leo Best and wife was executed after this lawsuit was filed.
The plaintiff testified that he paid $1,650 as rental on the property, which he claimed should be credited on the purchase price of the land; and he also testified that he had made valuable and lasting improvements on the real estate which cost him, in work, material, labor and wages, a total of $3,210, making a total that he had paid out by virtue of misrepresentations to him by the defendant McBee of $4,860, and that he had netted from his crops approximately $1,000; and he sued in the amount of $3,860 under his second cause of action, and this was the amount the jury awarded him.
The plaintiff based his suit on two causes of action. The first was for $5,000 for damages he had sustained by reason of the fact that he did not acquire title to the land in question. The jury denied and recovery on this first cause of action, but their verdict was for the plaintiff on his second cause of action, which was for the money and labor that he had expended on the property, together with the money paid under the lease contracts and option agreements. The plaintiff stated that he would not have paid out this money and made these improvements had it not been his belief that he would eventually get the land, and that this belief was based upon the statements of the defendant McBee.
McBee claimed that the plaintiff was only a tenant, and that at no time did he ever promise him that he would inquire of the insurance company as to the price at which plaintiff could buy the land; that he bought the land in the name of Henry Best and withheld a commission of five per cent for the sale of the property. That he would have been willing to go ahead and sell the land to the plaintiff if they could have made a satisfactory arrangement about the price, but that the plaintiff no longer desired to lease the land, or to buy the land, after 1945. He further testified that the land had been disposed of to Leo Best and that he no longer had any right, title, or interest in it.
Each of the defendants demurred to the petition of the plaintiff, which demurrers were overruled.
The plaintiff's petition, as amended, fails to state a cause of action against either Henry Best or Leo Best, and the trial court plainly erred in overruling their demurrers to the petition, and the action of the trial court in this respect is reversed, with directions to dismiss the case as to Henry Best and Leo Best.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial