Watson v. Klindt, 2659
| Decision Date | 01 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 2659,2659 |
| Parties | Jacob A. WATSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Allen F. KLINDT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Lewis & Copenhaver, Powell, for appellant.
Thomas M. McKinney, Basih, for respondent.
The plaintiff sued to recover $1,025 upon defendant's check for that sum made payable to plaintiff, alleging that the check was presented, payment refused, defendant notified but not paying the sum due. Defendant admitted making the check but denied all other allegations, and cross-petitioned in two causes, the substance of which set forth that plaintiff and one Morgariedge (sometimes spelled Morgareidge) were oil, gas and mineral lessees of lands from one Wagner and wife; that defendant, desiring to obtain an oil, gas and mineral lease of the same property, secured from plaintiff for a valuable consideration, a release of the plaintiff-Morgariedge lease, and thereupon defendant obtained an oil, gas and mineral lease of the property from Wagner and wife to himself; that to induce defendant to purchase the release, plaintiff represented he was the sole owner of the plaintiff-Morgariedge lease from the Wagners and that plaintiff could and would furnish and record written evidence that plaintiff was then the sole owner of that lease; that thereafter defendant learned Morgariedge still claimed an interest in the plaintiff-Morgariedge lease and defendant was forced to pay Morgariedge $800 for his release and disclaimer. Plaintiff failed within statutory time to file an answer to these cross-complaints and defendant moved for default judgment upon the same. Plaintiff then filed has answer, generally denying the two causes of the cross-petition, and defendant moved to strike that answer, but the court denied the motion. Upon trial to the court, plaintiff was given judgment for $1,025 interest and costs. In appealing from the judgment, defendant specifies as reversible error, (1) denial of defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's answer to the cross-petition, (2) refusal to permit defendant testifying as to dates when two wells were drilled on the lands in lease, (3) insufficiency of evidence to sustain the judgment and (4) that the judgment was contrary to law.
Section 3-1501, Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1945, specifies the times within which pleadings are to be filed. Section 3-1502, W.C.S.1945, provides:
'The court, or a judge thereof in vacation, may, for good cause shown, extend the time for filing any pleading upon such terms as are just.'
Thus, it is within the sound discretion of the court whether a pleading may be filed after the time provided in Section 3-1501, and no abuse of that discretion has been shown.
Not only did the defendant fail to make an offer of proof when the court sustained objection to his testifying as to the dates of drilling wells, but defendant has also failed to point out in what manner that testimony could have had any bearing on the issues to be decided or what effect the exclusion of the testimony had upon the judgment rendered. The objection is without merit.
At the beginning of the trial the court stated--'You gentlemen just stipulated, or agreed, as I understand it, that the defendant in this case delivered the check for $1,025 to the plaintiff (which is tendered into court), and that he owed the amount at the time, subject to your cross petition. * * *' There was also testimony by the defendant that he had given the plaintiff the check and at the time received therefor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chrysler Corp. v. Todorovich
...refusing to admit this evidence must be sustained. Truck Terminal, Inc. v. Nielsen, 80 Wyo. 223, 339 P.2d 413 (1959); Watson v. Klindt, 73 Wyo. 402, 280 P.2d 282 (1955); Cooley v. Frank, 68 Wyo. 436, 235 P.2d 446 (1951); Wyoming Inv. Co. v. Wax, et ux., 45 Wyo. 321, 18 P.2d 918 In its eight......
-
Valentine v. Ormsbee Exploration Corp.
...offer of proof showing what that party expected to prove, failing in which he may not assert the exclusion as error. Watson v. Klindt, 73 Wyo. 402, 280 P.2d 282, 283 (1955); Castor v. Rice, 71 Wyo. 99, 254 P.2d 189, 190 (1953); Tauer v. Williams, 69 Wyo. 388, 242 P.2d 518, 524 (1952); Chica......
-
Krahn v. Pierce
...might have had upon the verdict of the jury. No doubt we would be justified in rejecting the point on that basis alone. Watson v. Klindt, 73 Wyo. 402, 280 P.2d 282, 283. We are not so inclined, however, inasmuch as the point poses an important problem concerning the admissibility of expert ......
-
State v. Ditzel, 2727
...examined Wyoming Inv. Co. v. Wax, 45 Wyo. 321, 339, 18 P.2d 918; Cooley v. Frank, 68 Wyo. 436, 451, 235 P.2d 446; and Watson v. Klindt, 73 Wyo. 402, 280 P.2d 282, where failure to make offer of proof was held to be fatal, but none of these cases present a situation such as that before us, w......