Reynolds v. Conner, Case Number: 29558

• Decision Date: 23 December 1941
• Docket Number: Case Number: 29558
• Parties: REYNOLDS, Adm'r. v. CONNER
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1941 OK 413
123 P.2d 664
190 Okla. 323

REYNOLDS, Adm'r.
v.
CONNER

Case Number: 29558

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: December 23, 1941

Syllabus

¶0 1. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE--Action to enforce oral contract to devise realty in consideration of services to be performed or in alternative to recover value of services on quantum meruit is one of purely equitable cognizance.

In an action to enforce specific performance of an oral contract to devise real property in consideration of services to be performed or, in the alternative, to recover the value of such services on quantum meruit, the substantial or paramount purpose is to obtain equitable relief, and the action is of purely equitable cognizance.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR--TRIAL--Verdict in equity case advisory only--Judgment not reversed on facts unless against clear weight of evidence.

Where a cause of equitable cognizance is tried to a jury, the verdict is advisory only, and it is the duty of the court to make its own determination of the issues of fact and law, and in such a case this court on appeal, will weigh the evidence, but will not reverse the judgment on the facts unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence.

3. WORK AND LABOR--Recovery from estate on quantum meruit for value of services rendered under oral contract to devise land in consideration of such services-Value of land ordinarily not admissible to prove value of services.

Where plaintiff seeks to recover on quantum meruit for the value of services rendered under an oral contract to devise land in consideration of such services, the value of the land , or the contract price agreed upon by the parties, is not admissible as an element in estimating the value of the services actually performed unless the duration, nature, and extent of the services ultimately performed were sufficiently definite and certain at the time of the agreement to permit of reasonably accurate approximation by the parties.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Frank P. Douglass, Judge.
Action by Eunice Reynolds Conner against D. G. Reynolds, administrator of the estate of M. E. Reynolds, deceased. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Walter L. Gray and Billups, Billups & Billups, all of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Miley, Hoffman, Williams, France & Johnson, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

GIBSON, J.

¶1 This is an action against the heirs of an intestate and the administrator of his estate to enforce specific performance of an alleged oral contract whereby the deceased had agreed to leave at his death certain real estate to plaintiff in consideration of personal services to be performed by plaintiff for and on behalf of decedent, or, in the alternative, to recover judgment on creditor's claim theretofore filed for the reasonable value of such services. Judgment for $10,000 was rendered for plaintiff in accord with a general verdict and answers of the jury to special interrogatories. The administrator has appealed.

¶2 Defendant administrator takes the position that, since the trial court failed to decree specific performance, and rendered instead a judgment on quantum meruit for the value of the services rendered, the burden was on plaintiff to establish the value thereof according to the accepted rules for measuring value in such case, and insists that the plaintiff failed not only in this respect but failed wholly to establish the agreement in the first instance. It is further asserted that the action is one of purely equitable cognizance, and that the judgment is against the clear weight of the evidence, and contrary to law.

¶3 We agree that the action is one of purely equitable cognizance. The principal cause is to enforce specific performance of a contract to convey real property and not for the recovery of money or specific real property. A judgment in the alternative to establish a creditor's claim is sought only in-event the cause for specific performance should fail. In 35 C. J. 173, see. 47, it is said that:

"Such suits belong exclusively to the jurisdiction of chancery and are still triable by the court without a jury under the codes of procedure. The mere fact that plaintiff asks in the alternative to recover the value of the property in case defendant has put it out of his power to make a good conveyance does not change the character of the action."

¶4 We find in the text, above, the following statement:

"Where, however, specific performance cannot be decreed, the court cannot proceed to adjudicate upon the question of damages resulting from the breach of contract, which is a strictly legal claim and triable by jury."

¶5 But this statement simply means that a party who knows, or should know, that his contract cannot be performed may not sue for specific performance thereof as a subterfuge for procuring a trial in equity on his alternative claim for damages. Cotter v. Gilman, 191 Iowa, 795, 180 N. W. 275. There are authorities to the contrary. But the rule, in this state is that where the court has acquired jurisdiction of an equitable proceeding it will give complete relief. McKay v...