WASHITA RIVER OIL CORP. v. DUTRO

WASHITA RIVER OIL CORP. v. DUTRO
1926 OK 715
250 P. 488
120 Okla. 69
Case Number: 16966
Decided: 09/14/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

WASHITA RIVER OIL CORP.
v.
DUTRO.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Review of Law Case--Sufficiency of Evidence.
In a law case, where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury, decision, or judgment of the court, the same will not be disturbed by this court on appeal.

Cornelius Hardy, for plaintiff in error.
Ratliff & Ratliff and Brown, Brown & Williams, for defendant in error.

THREADGILL, C.

¶1 The defendant in error, H. F. Dutro, hereinafter called plaintiff, filed his petition in the district court to recover on a claim in the sum of $ 813, with interest, for work and labor performed as a tool dresser, under a verbal contract, in the employ of Washita River Oil Corporation, I. E. Gibbons, and Gayle Denny, hereinafter called defendants, and to foreclose an oil and gas well lien against defendant's oil and gas leasehold property in Johnston county. He alleged, in substance, that the defendants Washita River Oil Corporation and I. E. Gibbons employed him as tool dresser on a well being drilled by said defendants, located on the Fred Trotter farm in section 9, T. 4 S., R. 4 E., in Johnston county; that he was to receive for such work a salary of $ 100 cash per month, and the sum of $ 170 in stock of the said oil corporation per month up until the 1st day of April, 1923, and thereafter, $ 270 per month cash; that he performed the work according to agreement, and said defendants issued the stock as agreed, but had paid nothing in money; that they were indebted to him $ 100 per month for the months of January, February, and March, 1923, and $ 270 for April, and $ 243 for 27 days in May, 1923, making a total sum of $ 813. Plaintiff further pleaded his lien statement and asked for judgment. The defendant Gayle Denny filed a disclaimer and was discharged. The defendants Washita River Oil Corporation and I. E. Gibbons filed separate answers and cross-petitions, the material parts of which, for the purposes of this appeal, were to the effect that plaintiff was employed as a tool dresser for said corporation, and was to be paid nine shares of stock per day for his services, but they each deny that he was to be paid anything in money. There were other allegations as to the status and rights of the parties in the leasehold estate, but since these matter are not involved in the appeal, it is unnecessary to state them here. The issues were tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, in the sum of $ 813 with interest against the Washita River Oil Corporation, a denial of foreclosure of lien claim, and dismissal as to I. E. Gibbons, and from an order overruling the oil corporation's motion for a new trial, this appeal is prosecuted by petition in error and case-made attached.

¶2 Defendant states several assignments of error which are discussed under one proposition, to the effect that the evidence, on behalf of the plaintiff, failed to show that he was employed as a tool dresser and for a salary to be paid in money. It is not contended that he was not employed by the month as tool dresser to be paid in stock of the oil corporation, but it is urged that there was no legal contract to pay a salary in money.