Smith v. Wedding
| Citation | 303 S.W.2d 322 |
| Parties | Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,346 James E. SMITH, Wallace A. Colyer, G. D. Whitehurst, Frederick, R. Stamler, and A. J. Schneider, Appellants, v. Florine Mae WEDDING, Executrix of the Estate of Joseph M. Wedding, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1957 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
Robert E. Humphreys, Jr., Humphreys, Jones, Beard & Connor, Owensboro, for appellants.
Harry L. Hargadon, Arnold J. Lemaire, Hargadon, Bennett & Lemaire, Louisville, for appellee.
Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Earle v. Powell, Asst. Atty. Gen., amici curiae.
Joseph M. Wedding was actively engaged in speculative oil ventures from 1951 through 1953. In the course of his activities, he sold to James E. Smith, Wallace A. Colyer, G. D. Whitehurst, Frederick R. Stamler, and A. J. Schneider, the appellants, undivided fractional working interests in oil and gas leasehold estates located in western Kentucky. Wedding later secured additional money from the appellants for their respective proportionate parts of the costs of drilling test wells on each of the leasehold estates here involved. The total amount advanced by the appellants in the several transactions was $79,742.41.
In December, 1953, each of the appellants filed a complaint against Wedding, alleging that each had tendered to Wedding and other sellers represented by Wedding, all their interests in the oil and gas leasehold estates, and that such tender had been refused. They further alleged that the fractional interests constituted securities as defined by KRS 292.010(7), and were not registered with the Director of the Division of Securities as required by KRS 292.120. Relief was sought under KRS 292.220(1), which provides that every sale made in violation of any of the provisions of Chapter 292 is voidable at the option of the purchaser. The cases were consolidated by order of the trial judge and heard upon facts as stipulated by agreement of counsel. On October 6, 1955, the trial judge dismissed the complaints, and this appeal was taken.
The only question to be decided is whether an undivided fractional interest in oil and gas leases, commonly called a working interest, constitutes a security as defined by KRS 292.010(7). The statute sets out with some particularity what is to be deemed a security:
"Security' means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, transferable share, voting trust certificate, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation, certificate of interest in a profit-sharing agreement, certificate of interest in an oil, gas or mining lease, royalty or title, collateral trust certificate, pre-organization subscription, any share, investment contract or beneficial interest in or title to property, profits or earnings or any other instrument commonly known as a security.' KRS 292.010(7).
It was stated in Lewis v. Creasey Corporation, 198 Ky. 409, 248 S.W. 1046, 1048, that the term 'security' 'carries with it the idea that the investor will earn his profit through the efforts of others than his own.' The owner of an undivided working...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.J.L.S. v. T.L.S.
...Kentucky follows this doctrine. Fiscal Court of Jefferson County v. Brady, 885 S.W.2d 681, 685 (Ky.1994), quoting Smith v. Wedding, 303 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Ky.1957)("It is a primary rule of statutory construction that the enumeration of particular things excludes the idea of something else not......
-
Witter v. Buchanan
...143 S.W.2d 197; see also Upton v. Trinidad Petroleum Corp. (5th Cir.1981, 652 F.2d 424 (interpreting Alabama law.) But see Smith v. Wedding (Ky.1957), 303 S.W.2d 322; State v. Allen (1939), 216 N.C. 621, 5 S.E.2d 844.) We have relied upon these well reasoned opinions to guide us through the......
-
Shepperd v. Boettcher & Co., Inc.
...§ 17-4-113(a)(xi), W.S.1977. Litigants have led us to cases which we do not find inapposite to the decision now adopted. Smith v. Wedding, Ky., 303 S.W.2d 322 (1957), was the early case used both in the 1962 Attorney General opinion and by the United States District Court. See similarly res......
-
Kelly v. City of Fort Thomas, Kentucky
...excludes the idea of something else not mentioned." Fiscal Court v. Brady, 885 S.W.2d 681, 685 (Ky. 1994) (quoting Smith v. Wedding, 303 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Ky.App.1957)). After analyzing KRS § 82.082 in light of these rules, the Court concludes that the General Assembly did not intend for adm......