Oil City Iron Works v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 10 May 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 353.)
• Parties: OIL CITY IRON WORKS v. BRADLEY et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

283 S.W. 362

OIL CITY IRON WORKS v. BRADLEY et al.

(No. 353.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 10, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hot Spring County; Thos. E. Toler, Judge.

Action by B. B. Bradley and others against the Oil City Iron Works. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

B. B. Bradley, D. W. Clark, Truman Works, Jim Coleman, Rufus Robbins, and N. C. Phillips brought separate suits in the justice court against the Oil City Iron Works to recover the amounts alleged to be due them for wages. Each one recovered judgment for the amount sued for, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court. The cases were consolidated and tried together in the circuit court.

According to the evidence for the plaintiffs, they were employed by R. C. Houston to drill an oil well near Princeton in Dallas county, Ark., during the year 1923. Houston got behind in the payment of their wages, and H. V. Miller, the agent of the Oil City Iron Works, came to the oil well where the plaintiffs were working, and paid part of the plaintiffs in full, and the rest of them part of their wages. Houston again got behind with the wages of the plaintiffs, and they notified him that they were going to quit work. Miller came to the well again with Houston, and told the plaintiffs that the Oil City Iron Works had sold Houston the drilling rig, and that Houston owed it a balance on the purchase price. Miller told the plaintiffs that, if they would continue work and finish the well, the Oil City Iron Works would see that they got paid for their labor. Miller further told the plaintiffs that, in the event they failed to strike oil in the well that they were digging, and Houston should remove the drilling rig and rent it out, the rents would be paid through the Oil City Iron Works, and that it would see that their wages were paid out of the first rents received for the rig.

Miller further stated that, in the event the drilling rig was sold, his company would pay the plaintiffs their wages out of the proceeds of the sale. The plaintiffs relied upon these representations, and returned to work. They would not have continued to work if Miller had not assured them that the Oil City Iron Works would see that they got their money. They worked on a few days longer, and Miller came out one afternoon and gave them a written notice as follows:

"You are hereby notified that all the drilling machinery, tools, derrick, and so forth on this location are the property of the Oil City Iron Works, and that the said Oil City Iron Works is in nowise liable for the payment of any labor bills that may hereafter accrue for labor done in and about this well, and you are especially notified that no claim that you may hereafter have against any person for any labor so done shall operate as a laborer's lien against the said Oil City Iron Works and the above-mentioned property."

H. V. Miller was a witness for the defendant. According to his testimony, he was the agent for the Oil City Iron Works, and sold the drilling rig in question to R. C. Houston for $12,500; $5,000 of this amount was paid in cash; and Houston gave three notes for $2,500 each for the balance of the purchase price. The title in the drilling rig was retained in the seller until the balance of the purchase price should be paid. Houston made default in the payment of the first note, and Miller lent him $150 to pay the wages of his laborers operating the drilling rig in November, 1923. Miller told the laborers that, if he was in their place, he would work a few days longer, and, if Houston did not pay them, that he would quit. He promised them, if Houston moved the rig and rented it, that the money for the rent would have to come through his company, and he would see that Houston paid their wages.

On cross-examination Miller admitted that he knew that the plaintiffs had a right to file a lien against the drilling rig for their labor, but stated that he did not make them any promises to keep them from doing so. He stated further that he thought Houston had a good chance to bring in the well that he was drilling.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amounts sued for, and from the judgment rendered the defendant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Smith & Little, of Camden, for appellant.

D. D. Glover and John L. McClellan, both of Malvern, for appellees.

HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

If the evidence is in conflict as to whether the promise is independent or collateral, the question is for the jury. Davis v. Patrick, 141 U. S. 479, 12 S. Ct. 58, 35 L. Ed. 826.

As was said in Emerson v. Slater, 22 How. 28, 16 L. Ed. 360:

"Whenever the main purpose and object of the promisor is not to answer for another, but to subserve some pecuniary or business purpose of his own, involving either a benefit to himself, or damage to the other contracting party, his promise is not within the statute, although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of...